Church of England: Disestablishment

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will take steps to disestablish the Church of England.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government would not contemplate disestablishment of the Church of England unless the Church itself wished it.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that is a very disappointing Answer from my noble friend. How can that position be sustained when only 30 per cent of the population are members of the Church of England and only 20 per cent of them attend church regularly? In addition, does he agree that there has been a fundamental change in religious beliefs in this country, in that Catholics, non-conformists, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists and those who have no religious belief at all now constitute a majority? Should they not be given a status equal to that of the Church of England?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is a long Christian tradition in this country and it is our belief that that should not be thrown away lightly. There is no suggestion in what I have said that there is discrimination against different religions, faiths, creeds and so on. We do not see any good reason for disestablishment. It is entirely a matter for the Church to consider.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the Government do not wish to disestablish the Church of England, will they do something to rectify the injustice caused by the large number of Bishops--26 of them--who sit in this House? The figures I have obtained from the Library show that they represent only 2 per cent of the Christian population, leaving aside the Sikhs, the Muslims and the Jewish population. Would the Government therefore be prepared to create around 80 new Bishops to correct that imbalance?

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I mean, of course, 80 new Lords, not Bishops.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that that will be government policy.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, far from wishing to see an end to the establishment of the Church of England, many other denominations and faiths support its continuance as the surest religious reference in our national life against an otherwise purely secular state?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that that is absolutely the case.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, in the discussions taking place about a new House of Lords, there seems to be a predominance of view that the Church of England should always be represented in the House. Should there not be a wider casting of the net to bring other faiths into this Chamber? Will the Minister pass on to those who are perhaps more directly concerned in this matter that a large body of opinion in this country is non-believing and that that body of opinion is of equal worth in society? Therefore, in the discussions about the future of the House of Lords, would it not be a good idea to include as well as the Churches the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord said has great relevance. No doubt, in any discussions on the future composition of your Lordships' House, those views will be taken into consideration.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the true importance of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington is that it demonstrates that we have become a multi-cultural society? If we are to be an inclusive, as distinct from an exclusive society, the constitutional challenge that faces us all is how to give the pluralism in our society a greater presence in our political and national institutions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on a very good point. We must encourage a much more inclusive society and find ways in which all sections of our different multi-faith and multi-ethnic communities can be represented in all our national institutions.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us look on Prayers before the start of business as the right way to start our day? Those who cannot or do not want to take part are entitled to remain outside, as they do.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the discussion he has with the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society will be easy as they occupy the same office?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am indeed grateful for that piece of information.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, for the Church of England, establishment is not about privilege but about service and responsibility in offering pastoral care and guidance to everyone, regardless of their religious adherence or none? By "everyone" we mean people living not only in suburbia but in some of the most difficult urban areas of the land and some of the most isolated rural areas as well.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is right. During the course of my lifetime, I have greatly benefited from exactly that kind of pastoral care and support. I pay great tribute to the Church for the important work that it does.

Earl Russell: My Lords, on reflection, does the Minister agree that it was a little unfair to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, of throwing out the Christian tradition as the noble Lord's record of respect for the rights of minorities is beyond reproach? Does he further agree that the right reverend Prelates do a great deal of good in this House?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with both of those statements.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope it does not do the Minister's reputation any harm if I say how much I agree with his response to this Question. I agree also with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said. Does the Minister agree that the whole debate about disestablishment was not helped when during the proceedings on the Learning and Skills Bill the Government chose to have partisan discussions with the Church of England without including the Official Opposition?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that helpful observation. There is no great debate about disestablishment. It appears to be something which is very much off the political agenda.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, have the Government given thought to the fact that 33 per cent of Grade I listed buildings are under the control of the Church of England, which pays for their maintenance? How would the Government deal with that situation if the Church was disestablished?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's second question is that disestablishment would make no difference at all. But as disestablishment is not part of the Government's agenda, it is not an issue on which I can possibly comment.

NHS: Allergy Specialists

Viscount Simon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they propose to alleviate the shortage of allergists in the National Health Service.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the new allergy specialty was established in June last year. We are currently assessing how many consultants the National Health Service will need in this specialty, in discussion with the relevant Royal Colleges and NHS management.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that of the 100 so-called allergy clinics, only six are currently run by those who have been specially trained to cover the breadth of allergic disease, which is quite considerable? Is my noble friend also aware that one in 200 four year-olds suffers from a peanut allergy which is the cause of the commonest food-induced fatal or near fatal reaction? Of those people who die unnecessarily, none has been seen by a specialist allergist. Because allergy is so common, having increased twofold or threefold over the past 20 years, why are so few allergists available?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly recognise the rising trend in the number of people affected by allergies. So far as concerns the new clinical specialty of allergy, it was established only last year. The Royal Colleges have advised us that we shall need one allergy specialist per regional centre--there are six regional centres in England. Three allergy specialists are already in post. We are training more and the centres will be fully staffed by 2005. It is also worth making the point that many other specialists are involved in the treatment of allergies, including dermatologists, gastroenterologists and immunologists. We need to look at the picture in the round and not consider only the number of specialist allergists.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that since 1994 the Department of Health has had an opportunity to assess how many specialists are needed in this area? Perhaps I may refer him to the report entitled Good Allergy Practice, published in 1994 by the Royal College of Pathologists, with a foreword written by his noble friend Lord Turnberg. The document recommended,
	"at least one specialist in clinical immunology and allergy for every three health districts".
	Is not that the correct test here?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for referring to that report. I understand that currently 106 consultants in immunology are in post. That figure is expected to rise to 135 by 2006. I believe that we have seen an expansion in that field. We are also seeing increases in the numbers of dermatologists and gastroenterologists as well as in other specialties. I recognise that there are still issues surrounding waiting times for people to be seen at such clinics. It is clear that we shall need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we are aware of the demands being made on those services. I can assure the House that we shall be doing that.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there exists a large range of intolerances and sensitivities to foods, air and water which lie outside the classical definition of allergy, but which, similarly, appear to be on the increase and for which patients are not receiving the help they need within mainstream medicine? In particular, is the noble Lord aware of the allergy unit which has been doing good work at the Middlesex Hospital, but which is likely to close down on the retirement of the present incumbent?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is my understanding that, as regards food intolerances, the Committee on Toxicity yesterday produced a report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients which strongly recommended raising awareness of such problems in the food industry. I shall be happy to send a copy of the report to the noble Earl. As regards the general issues, we need to ensure that our research programme is comprehensive. I should be glad to discuss that programme with the noble Earl.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, does the Minister recall the case of Mr Patrick Webster, the serial sneezer, who sneezed several hundred times a day for 35 years? He consulted more than 60 doctors, but it was not until he saw an allergist that his treatment was successful. It turned out that he was sensitive to oats. What steps are being taken by the Minister to ensure that general medical practitioners are made aware of the work undertaken by allergists?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this issue needs to be addressed on a number of levels within the health service. We already have in place 100 clinics, along with six regional specialty clinics which can provide the type of comprehensive service that is needed. However, I certainly accept the noble Lord's point that we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that those working in primary care--GPs and nurses--are able to deal with allergy issues. The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pathology have been involved in producing standards of care which will be of great assistance to the primary care sector.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. Can the Minister ensure that the maximum possible co-operation takes place between allergy specialists in the private sector and the NHS? I speak as one who was sceptical in the extreme until approximately six months ago when, on the advice of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, I visited an allergy specialist. I am now totally cured of the allergy from which I suffered.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. Of course I believe that where the private sector has specialist services to offer, it is right that the NHS should look to see whether that is relevant. I also believe that, when seeking to ensure effective services, local health authorities, in producing health improvement programmes, need to ensure that they have considered the full range of services available for allergy sufferers.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord opposite was not the only sceptic? Many working in the medical profession have been sceptics for years. For example, multiple sclerosis was regarded as the "idle man's disease". Following on from the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has the Minister considered the problem of multiple chemical sensitivities? Because this condition is now accepted in many states in America, can the Minister say what is being done in the United Kingdom to confirm that multiple chemical sensitivities exist and that they can be treated?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is certainly the case that many explanations have been put forward for the rise in allergies in this country. We need to ensure that our research programme is sufficiently geared so that we are able to identify all the causes of allergies. So far as concerns the use of complementary and alternative therapies outwith the NHS, it is absolutely clear that where the NHS and individual clinicians feel that such therapies would provide the appropriate treatment, they are able to refer patients on to those services.

Special Needs Action Plan: Stammering

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What account they will take of the needs of pupils who stammer in the new Special Needs Action Plan.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the existing code of practice gives guidance on policies and procedures aimed at enabling pupils with special educational needs to reach their full potential. In the SEN Programme of Action, we declared our intention to establish a working group to look into the provision made for children with communication difficulties, including stammering. That work is now almost finished and a report on speech and language services will be published in the autumn.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware of the analysis made by the British Stammering Association--I declare an interest both as a member and as a long-term practitioner--which showed that 95 per cent of the teachers surveyed knew nothing about how to help a disfluent child at school? Can she ensure that the work of the British Stammering Association, which welcomes the initial interest shown by the department, is used to good effect in teaching?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, all newly qualified teachers must be able to demonstrate that they can identify pupils with special educational needs and then refer them on to appropriate services. They must also know how to give the positive and targeted support that such pupils need, and they have to be familiar with the code of practice. More specialist knowledge is provided through various forms of in-service training. The department is now spending some £26 million a year under the Standards Fund on such in-service training. However, we very much welcome the training resources that are being developed by the British Stammering Association. We shall do our best to publicise them.

Lord Rea: My Lords, bearing in mind that 95 per cent of teachers do not have the skills or training to cope with such speech or language problems, are the Government satisfied that there are enough trained practitioners for every secondary school, so that all children can receive the treatment that they need when they need it, if teachers can identify those with difficulties? If the Government are not satisfied, what is being done?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my department and the Department of Health have been examining the issues surrounding the recruitment and retention of speech therapists. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has set up a review to examine the difficulties in recruiting and retaining such specialists. The review will report later this year.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. There is an acute shortage of speech therapists. The reason for that is their abysmally low pay. Is there anything that the Government can do to help?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking at issues of pay as well as other matters relating to terms and conditions of service and the recruitment of specialists in this area.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can help me if I broaden the issue slightly. In the past two years I have visited a number of special educational needs schools and units. As well as being very impressed by the work that they do, I have been alarmed to note that decisions as to whether children should be excluded or included seem to be taken largely on an anecdotal and personal basis--one might even describe it as prejudiced. Can my noble friend assure me that sufficient resources will be made available over the next few years so that judgments can be made on a far more secure basis with regard to whether special educational needs children should be educated in special schools or in general schools?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this matter is very much on the Government's agenda. The Government are committed to attempting to increase the number of children with special educational needs who can be educated in mainstream schools. But it is vitally important that sufficient and appropriate specialist resources and back-up are provided for those children.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one of the categories of people who are most helpful for children who have this condition are the speech therapists who work in and with schools. Are they included in the threshold payments? It seems to me that there may well be tension now between speech therapists and the teachers alongside whom they work, given that teachers will enjoy the benefits of the threshold payments.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, speech therapists are employed by the health service. They are occasionally attached to schools, but for the most part they work outside schools, and pupils are sent to them in the clinics where they work.

House of Lords: Scrutiny of Legislation

Lord Monson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of recent recommendations by the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, they believe that the House of Lords should be given more power to scrutinise and possibly delay or reject primary and secondary legislation.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand that the recommendations of the All-Party Modernisation Committee in another place are intended to allow Members there to make more effective use of parliamentary time in scrutinising primary legislation. They are not intended to reduce the time available for scrutiny. The recommendations are a matter for Members of another place and do not affect procedures in this House.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. However, does she agree that most serious commentators believe that the proposed changes would curtail debate in another place and make it much easier for all governments to force their measures through? That would strengthen the executive at the expense of all opposition parties, and also at the expense of independent-minded Back-Benchers of all parties. To restore the balance, is it not essential for this House to be given the powers to prevent any possible slide towards an elective dictatorship?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as each House has control over its own procedures, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on changes that are made in another place. As I understand it, the proposals for timetabling, which were the burden of the modernisation report, are intended to make a fair division of available time relevant to each part of every procedure in another place. There are no proposals that would affect proceedings in this House.

Lord Renton: My Lords, in the past two Sessions government legislation from another place has reached us in an unprepared state and a very heavy task has fallen on Members of this House in attempting to put it right. To what extent would the modernisation of the other place as proposed in this plan overcome that problem?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said, I do not think it appropriate for this House to comment on the procedures of another place and how they may or may not affect the scrutiny of legislation. As regards the time spent on legislative scrutiny, the figures that I have, which compare the 1995 Session with the past year, indicate that in the 1995 Session 43 Bills received 121 hours' scrutiny at Second Reading in another place, while so far in this Session 40 Bills have received over 150 hours of scrutiny at Second Reading. So, clearly, the questions of timetabling and scrutiny are not falling into disrepute.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, it is not our business to worry about the procedures of another place except in so far as they result in legislation of the kind that has arrived here recently, ill-prepared and ill-considered. But surely we should think more about our own procedures. Is there any barrier to this House rejecting secondary legislation?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as has been demonstrated in this Session, we have had one rejection of secondary legislation. That was an outcome that the Government did not welcome. I believe that it was only the second time that such a thing had occurred in a very long time, probably since the Second World War. The issues of secondary legislation and how it should be scrutinised were addressed in proposals in the report on the reform of the House of Lords by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. They would probably be appropriate matters for consideration by the Joint Committee of both Houses when it is set up after the Recess to examine the parliamentary aspects of reform.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that what concerns many of us is not scrutiny but control? Does she further agree that, over the past 30 years or so, the controlling of ill-considered legislation has been slowly passing from Parliament to the courts? While I do all honour to the courts, ought we not to try to keep our end up?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as always, the noble Earl makes an interesting observation, but it is somewhat wide of the Question.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that an increasing number of Bills that come to this House seem to have been badly scrutinised by another place? That may not just be the fault of Members of another place but may be the result of directions given by Ministers to the parliamentary draftsmen. When it comes to giving more power to delay legislation, are not the Government doing a rather good job all on their own? The Freedom of Information Bill had its Second Reading in this House on 20th April, and the Political Parties and Referendums Bill had its first day in Committee on 11th May. What has happened to those Bills?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we have not completed every part of every Bill. However, I was very pleased to report to the Cabinet this morning that we have reached Royal Assent on every single one of the Bills to which we gave agreement by the end of July. That is a long list of Bills; it will appear in the Official Report tomorrow. It is entirely consistent with the projections that we have given over the past few months. The two Bills mentioned by the noble Lord will be addressed in the overspill.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the comments of the Speaker of the House of Commons that parliamentary reform should be in order to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of government--that it should strengthen Parliament in calling government to account--and that that should take precedence over any changes designed for the convenience of Members?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am always pleased to hear the noble Lord's comments on these matters. They are extremely authoritative and we have all benefited from his thinking in this area. These are general questions which may well become appropriate when the Joint Committee is set up to discuss the relationship between the two Houses.

Millennium Dome Sale

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether an agreement to sell the Millennium Dome has been reached; and, if so, to whom and on what terms.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Dome Europe has won the competition to take over the Dome when the Millennium Experience ends on 31st December. It has now signed heads of agreement with the Government. We believe that its proposals will deliver a high quality, innovative and economically sustainable long-term future for the Dome of which the people of Greenwich and the United Kingdom can be proud. In supporting the Dome's transition from the current Millennium Experience to another visitor destination, Dome Europe proposes to create an urban entertainment resort through a combination of uses inside the Dome and on adjacent land. The latter will include hotels, a convention centre, commercial leisure, restaurants, residential units, offices, retail and community facilities. Although all of the proposals are subject to the granting of planning permission and much work remains to be done to complete the sale of the site, we are confident that Dome Europe's proposals will deliver an exciting contribution to the continued regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula.
	Further, the Government have decided that of the overall consideration from the sale of the Millennium Dome, some £53 million should be paid to the New Millennium Experience Company from total expected early payments of £105 million. In the agreement with Dome Europe there is also provision for additional payment for land value in certain circumstances and a share of profits if and when the business changes hands from Dome Europe. The balance of that total amount, after the payment to NMEC and meeting third-party commitments, will go to English Partnerships.
	In reaching this view, we took account of the benefit to the Greenwich peninsula and the Thames gateway in terms of continuity of jobs and assured future private investment in the site, building on the substantial public investment already made--more than £1 billion--towards major environmental, transport and other improvements on the peninsula. The Dome company's agreed entitlement to that share of the proceeds of sale means that it will continue to operate within its approved lifetime budget of £758 million. The Millennium Commission has agreed to consider how it may assist the Dome company in realising its share of the proceeds of the sale to underpin the company's finances in the period before Dome Europe take over the Dome.
	The Government have always supported and believed in the long-term legacy which will be achieved on the Greenwich site because of the investment of lottery funds in the Dome. The Millennium Dome has brought benefits to the national and local economy. It has been a hugely innovative public sector enterprise that has harnessed private sector money. It is a project which will be a model for future regeneration schemes, with £160 million of private sector sponsorship secured.
	During 2000, over 5,000 people will be employed at the Dome, and 6,000 long-term jobs will be created through all of the peninsular developments. The Greenwich Millennium Village will provide 1,377 mixed-tenure homes and a further 1,600 elsewhere. The first people will move into the new houses by the end of the year. Greenwich council estimates that 30,000 jobs will be created as a result of the Dome.
	Successive governments and the Millennium Commission have always supported and believed in the long-term legacy which will be achieved on the Greenwich site because of the investment of lottery funds in the Dome. We are delighted that a successful outcome has been achieved and that it has been possible to unlock the new value in the site as a result of the commission's investment. This good result means that the Dome has secured its future and can plan and deliver the next five months with confidence.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to table this Question. I also thank the noble and learned Lord for coming to the House to reply. First, can the Minister tell the House how much of the proceeds will reach English Partnerships? From the response of the Minister, it sounds as if English Partnerships, which represents the taxpayer, is at the end of a very long queue of creditors. Secondly, from the response of the Minister am I right to believe that in order to stay open until the end of the year the Millennium Commission is being asked to make available either a loan or a facility to keep the Dome project afloat until Nomura takes it over at the end of the period?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to how much English Partnerships will receive, for reasons of commercial confidentiality I cannot set out in full the details of the agreement reached with Dome Europe. However, I have indicated that early payments of £105 million are to be made. Of that, £53 million will go to NMEC and the remainder to English Partnerships. The amount that goes to English Partnerships will be totally unencumbered and will reflect a fair split of the money with the Dome company. The Dome company and English Partnerships each owns part of the Dome, and there has been a sensible and fair split between the two.
	The noble Baroness asked whether for the Dome to stay open the Millennium Commission is to provide a loan facility. The present position is that the Dome company has the asset; namely, the expectation that it will receive its share of the proceeds. The Millennium Commission has indicated that it will agree to consider how that asset may be realised between now and when Dome Europe takes over.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we welcome his Answer today which is a very satisfactory outcome, remembering as we do that the whole Dome project was conceived with all-party support? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that what has been, and will be, done in Greenwich will do a great deal to assist the local economy?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for reminding the House of the all-party support for the scheme by successive governments. I am also very grateful to him for reminding the House of the very substantial contribution that the Dome has made to the regeneration of Greenwich and the whole Thames gateway. We are all aware that that was one of the reasons why the Millennium Commission decided to go ahead with the Dome project and place it there.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend inform the House who is Dome Europe, what it intends to do with the Dome once it has acquired it, and how it managed to acquire such an unfortunate name?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Dome Europe is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nomura. I do not know how it secured its name, but it chose it. As I indicated in my initial response, it proposes to create an urban entertainment resort through a combination of uses. The latter will include hotels, a convention centre, commercial leisure, restaurants, residential units, offices, retail and community facilities.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the recent tattoo on Horse Guards Parade, finishing as it did with impressive scenes of young servicemen caring for children in disadvantaged parts of the world, represented everything that was finest in the traditions and heritage of this country which, by contrast, the Dome has from its inception failed to address? Will the Minister do all that he can to rectify that situation in the future use of the Dome?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Viscount about the tattoo. I believe that if the noble Viscount goes to Greenwich and sees the effect that the Dome has had on regeneration, employment and people who previously could not get work, he will conclude that the project is a very worthwhile legacy.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on having got shot of a project which I am sure has been a total anxiety to him and everyone else from the point of view of its capital costs, running costs and disposal. The noble and learned Lord must be very glad to be rid of it, because it has not been a great success, has it?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have genuinely been proud and privileged to be involved in the project which is now the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a project which the British Tourist Authority believes will bring approximately £1 billion-worth of tourism to this country this year. It is also a project which has transformed the derelict and unusable north Greenwich peninsula into an area which now has hope and the prospect of 30,000 new jobs. I believe that that is a legacy that has been well worth fighting for and sticking by throughout the life of the Dome.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord believe that the Japanese will make a better job of running the Dome than he and his friends?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the popularity of the competition, and the number of strong commercial enterprises which entered it, indicated that they thought that what had been created was a good commercial operation. I think that they will build on the good progress we have made.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I fully understand that we cannot go into the detail. However, can the Minister tell the House whether there are also warranties and indemnities in the contract?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there are to be negotiations. It would be wrong for me to comment.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, last Thursday the Minister three times gave absolute assurances of his confidence that the company would reach its financial objectives. Only the next day the annual report spoke of significant risks and uncertainties. One was the arrival of satisfactory funding from the sale. Others were the reductions of costs and maintaining adequate revenue. Can the Minister explain why his confidence was so much greater than that of the company? Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that it will be essential for a significant tranche of that sale, in one form or another, to be available by November?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the noble Lord had read it, he would have seen that the annual report indicates confidence, and, quite properly, the risks. I remain confident that the Dome will complete the year up to 31st December 2000 within its lifetime budget of £758 million. If it needs to realise before December the asset it now has, namely the sale, the Millennium Commission will consider how best to realise that.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the Government undertake an inquiry into the history of the project? Will the results of that inquiry be published? In particular, will that inquiry cover the question which has exercised a number of us about whether the Government overruled objections from the Millennium Commission about the propriety or otherwise of its continuing to support this project in view of its financial difficulties?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no, I shall not give such an undertaking. The issue was raised the week before last by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in an Unstarred Question. In the course of that debate it was established that there have been five Select Committee inquiries, in excess of 1,000 Questions, and a National Audit Office inquiry into the specific question to which the noble Viscount refers. In those circumstances, it does not seem appropriate that there should be any inquiry--far from it. This is an issue which requires parliamentary scrutiny, which it has had.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the--

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have reached 12 minutes.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may--

Noble Lords: Order!

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Companion indicates that a PNQ taken after Question Time normally takes 10 minutes. That is the time for what one might call a fifth Question. In this instance, given the length of the detailed response to the Private Notice Question which my noble and learned friend gave with great courtesy to the House, the Chief Whip and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition signalled to each other that 12 minutes should be taken. Those 12 minutes have now passed.

National Health Service Plan

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is on the health service and is as follows:
	"The NHS was the greatest achievement of the post-war Labour Government. It was based on one solid founding principle: that healthcare should be given on the basis of a person's need not his wealth. Some objected to that principle then. Some would like us to abandon it today. But this side of the House will never abandon what was one of the greatest civilising acts of emancipation this century has ever known. Our task is instead to provide both the money and the reform to make the NHS and its founding principle live on and prosper in the 21st century.
	"As to investment, in March we took a profound decision as a government. We had sorted out the public finances. Debt service payments were down. Spending on unemployment benefits was down. It was the tough decisions we took on the economy that gave us the opportunity to make an historic commitment to the NHS--an average real terms increase in spending of 6 per cent. Over five years the NHS will grow by a third in real terms, the largest ever sustained increase in its funding.
	"The plan shows, first, how that money will make up for years of under-investment. Over the next four years, it will provide 7,500 more consultants, a rise of 30 per cent; 2,000 extra GPs; 450 more GP trainees and more to come after that; in time 1,000 more medical training places each year--on top of the 1,000 already announced--a 40 per cent increase since 1997, and more than 20,000 extra qualified nurses, to add to the 10,000 extra already in post making 30,000 in total.
	"For decades the NHS has failed to invest sufficiently in modern building and equipment. The plan will mean 3,000 GP premises modernised and 500 new one-stop primary care centres, 250 new scanners for cancer and other illnesses, modern IT systems in every hospital and GP surgery, 100 new hospital schemes in the next 10 years; and 7,000 more hospital beds in hospitals and intermediate care including the first rise in acute hospital beds in 30 years.
	"This is only possible because we are making this historic investment in the NHS. Caring better for NHS staff will mean better care for NHS patients. That is why this plan sets out new facilities for staff, starting with 100 on-site nurseries; and money for training for all staff not just the professions but the support staff as well. Our task is not just to tackle years of under-funding but years of low morale too.
	"We know money alone is not the solution. Over the past few months, myself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State--to whose work I pay tribute today in drawing up the plan--have had scores of meetings with NHS staff and professionals, visited hospitals and GPs and spoken to providers and users of the NHS. Because the issue of funding has been alleviated, at long last people have been able to lift their heads and look at the system in which they operate.
	"The NHS staff are magnificent. They are the greatest asset the service has. They are the basis of the trust British people put in the NHS. But in truth they have been, often still are, working flat out in a system that is still organised as it was in the 1940s, when today patients and staff expect and demand a wholly different type of service for the new world in which we live.
	"What amazes me is that this is the first time that Government have looked long and hard at all aspects of the NHS: the absurd demarcations between staff that keep patients waiting; the splits between social services and the NHS that make life misery for many elderly people; the consultants' contract unchanged since 1948; the issue of private practice and NHS work left unresolved; GPs' contracts being based too much on quantity not quality; and a stand-off between the private sector and the NHS that is not in the interests of NHS patients. All difficult issues, all a relic from 1948. All addressed in this plan.
	"In this plan, each of these issues is faced up to and fundamental reform proposed. The aim is clear: to redesign the NHS system around the needs of the patient.
	"First, the role of nurses will be radically enlarged and old barriers to modern working removed. A qualified nurse has had at least three years' training. It is wrong that in many places nurses are unable to make and receive referrals, admit and discharge patients, order tests, run clinics and prescribe drugs. In future these old rules will be swept aside and nurses in every hospital will have that opportunity.
	"Secondly, in respect of GPs, the vast majority do a superb job. They are highly respected and rightly so and we should never allow publicity given to the few exceptions to undermine the excellence of the GPs' reputation. But the GPs' contract again is outdated and inflexible. GPs can do more, even some work presently undertaken by consultants, and should have far more freedom in how they use the money they have. Over time, without compulsion but with clear incentives, we aim to move GPS on to a new system of contractual arrangements--the Personal Medical Service contract--which will reward doctors on the basis of quality of care as well as numbers of patients and will give them within it far greater flexibility to innovate and change. There will be more salaried doctors. This will be the most significant change to the way GPs operate since 1948 and can literally transform primary care in this country.
	"Consultants do an extraordinary job for the NHS. Their expertise and immense skill are key to the future of the NHS. That is why we are increasing consultant numbers by a third and giving leading clinicians a greater role in the setting of national standards. But the consultant contract has remained largely unchanged since 1948. And though most consultants work extremely hard for the NHS beyond their contractual commitments, there is no proper management of their time. So for the first time we will make sure that all consultants have proper job plans setting out their key objectives, tasks and responsibilities. Consultants will also have their performance regularly reviewed.
	"But most of all, we want to reward those who make most commitment to the NHS. First, to encourage high standards of performance and the use of the new national service frameworks. In this case, the consultants, along with others, will have access to the new £500 million performance fund which will give extra money to those meeting the highest standards of service.
	"Secondly, we will merge the existing distinction awards and discretionary points schemes and increase the funding of them. By 2004, we will increase the number of consultants in receipt of a superannuable bonus from under one half of all consultants at present to around two-thirds and double the proportion of consultants who receive annual bonuses of £5,000 or more.
	"Thirdly, we offer the consultants a deal. From now on, once someone is newly qualified, then for the first few years of their service they will be contracted to work exclusively for the NHS. Again, these will be the most substantial changes to consultants' contracts since 1948.
	"The next major reform is to remedy the incredible situation where at one time thousands of older people are in the wrong place for their needs; stuck in hospital when they could be better cared for in their own homes. So for the first time, social services and the NHS will in every area use pooled budgets and new arrangements which ensure they work together for the good of the patient. And where local councils and primary care trusts want to go further and merge into one organisation we will enable them to do so, creating new care trusts that will deliver one-stop care with an entirely unified budget. Where partnerships persistently fail to deliver, we will require local health and social services to join together in a new care trust.
	"I would like to thank Sir Stewart Sutherland, who chaired the Royal Commission for Long Term Care, and the other members who sat on it. A full response to the commission's report is published alongside the Health Plan.
	"Today we are correcting a major injustice in the system. The NHS provides nursing care free of charge for people living in their own home or in hospital. But until now nursing provided in a nursing home has been charged for. This will now change. From October 2001, subject to parliamentary approval, nursing care in nursing homes will be treated as nursing care elsewhere in the NHS; free at the point of use.
	"In addition, we are investing in a major expansion of intermediate care, prevention and rehabilitation services for the elderly. By 2004 spending on new services and facilities will rise to £900 million a year. Also, as the commission proposed, we will expand respite care for services benefiting 75,000 carers and those they care for.
	"This package amounts to an extra £1.4 billion per year for older people, more investment than the Royal Commission itself called for.
	"Next, there is a series of reforms aimed at preventing ill-health and improving the nation's health, including measures to reduce smoking and improve diet.
	"Central to this are measures to reduce health inequalities. The truth is that there are gaps between the health of the poorest and the better off in our society which are completely unacceptable in a modern Britain. And it is children who pay the biggest price. That is why programmes like Sure Start, like the enhanced maternity grants, increased child benefit and the New Deal for Communities are so vital and why we should fight so hard to protect them against those who would abolish them.
	"Next, we will reform the treatment of the most serious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. Up until now, there have been no national standards and patchy treatment. Some get drugs, others do not. Some are seen quickly, others are not. For each of the main conditions, there will be a national framework of standards which will lay down minimum standards of access and care to which patients should be entitled. For cancer, for example, this means maximum waiting times covering not just referral to diagnosis but also diagnosis to treatment; a big expansion in cancer screening and cancer specialists; and an end to the postcode lottery in prescribing cancer drugs. Four hundred thousand patients every year will benefit from new equipment for diagnosing and treating cancer. For coronary heart disease there will be an extra £230 million a year by 2004; a 50 per cent increase in cardiologists; and shorter waits for heart operations.
	"These national service frameworks will reflect a fundamental change in the relationship between central government and the local NHS. The centre will do what it must do: set standards; monitor performance; support modernisation; put in place a proper system of inspection; and, where necessary, correct failure. The new Commission for Health Improvement will inspect and report on hospitals, primary care groups and primary care trusts. This information, like Ofsted on schools, will be available to the public. If necessary, the worst performing trusts will have new management put in. The 3,000 non-executive board members of trusts and health authorities will not in future be appointed by the Secretary of State but by an independent appointments commission. There will be a new independent panel to advise the Secretary of State on proposed reorganisations of local hospitals and health services.
	"There will be maximum devolution of power to local health professionals. Primary care groups will over time move to being primary care trusts offering minor surgery, physiotherapy and diagnostic tests and minor operations in the local primary care centre. And for all PCTs, health authorities and hospital trusts there will be a new system--what is called "earned autonomy"--which will radically reduce the amount of central intervention where performance is high. Patients put their trust in front-line doctors. So do we.
	"The best performers will be given greater freedom and flexibility and all will get access to additional funds tied to clear outcomes in performance.
	"This will include a new framework, a concordat, with the private sector. There should be and will be no barrier to partnership with the private sector where appropriate, as the PFI hospital building programme shows. Where the facilities of the private sector can improve care or help fill gaps in capacity, we should use it. But let me make one thing clear. We will never permit people to be forced out of the NHS for non-urgent care. That would destroy the NHS. Where the private sector is used, it will be fully within the NHS service-free at the point of use to the patient.
	"We also examined in detail alternative methods of funding the NHS. We concluded that the proposals of some to expand healthcare through tax incentives for private health insurance were massively inefficient and took vital resources out of the NHS and that moving entirely to a continental European type of social insurance system, while less inequitable than many other suggested alternatives, would cost an extra £1,000 to £1,500 per employee per annum. We also estimated that through the NHS, administrative costs are hugely reduced compared with other systems. We were therefore confirmed in our view that modernisation of the NHS was what was required not its dismantling.
	"At the heart of these reforms is the idea of re-designing the system round the patient. Too often, whatever the quality of actual care, the patient is catered for in dirty wards, rundown premises with standards of food and basic amenities far below what would be tolerable in other services. Part of the reforms outlined go to remedy this situation. Clean wards and better hospital food will become central to trusts' work, with new resources to back it up. This will get under way now. By 2002, 95 per cent of mixed sex wards will have gone. NHS Direct will be available in all parts of the country. In time, we aim to have the ability to link all parts of the system through technology so one call will put the patient immediately to the right place.
	"By 2005, booked appointments will take the place of old waiting lists. As a first big step towards this, all hospitals will by April 2001 be using booking for two of their major conditions. By 2003-04, two-thirds of all appointments will be pre-booked.
	"By 2004, there will be an end to long waits in accident and emergency and people will get an appointment with a GP within a maximum of 48 hours. Plus, if an operation is cancelled on the day it is due to take place, other than for medical reasons, patients will get another one within 28 days or have their treatment funded somewhere else.
	"Patients will also have more say and more choice with a patient advocate and forum in every hospital to give patients immediate help with sorting out their complaints and a voice in how the hospital is run.
	"Over time, these changes, plus the money and staff, will allow waiting to come down substantially. By 2005, the maximum waiting time for an outpatient appointment will be three months and for an in-patient six months, rather than the present 18 months with urgent cases being seen the most rapidly. Average waiting times will, as a result, also come down from seven weeks to five weeks for outpatients and from three months to seven weeks for operations. That means reduced waiting times for all conditions--not only some. And our eventual objective, provided that we recruit the staff and that the NHS makes the reforms, is to reduce the maximum waiting time for any stage of treatment to three months by end of 2008.
	"Many other proposals for change are set out in the plan. It will mean, over time, a very radical change in the NHS. But I emphasise to the country that it will take time. Some changes will be fast; others are crucially dependent on new investment in staff and facilities. Staff are crucial to this process. Uniquely, the principles that underpin the plan command the wide support of professions and staff across the NHS, as will be seen from the signatures to these principles at the start of the plan.
	"But there is another cause for optimism. At every level of the NHS there are already examples where change and reform have made a difference. We know that the plan is achievable because somewhere in the NHS it is being achieved. The challenge has been to remove the outdated practices and perverse incentives that have prevented the best from becoming the norm. And I make this clear to NHS staff: we shall continue with the same system of co-operative working and partnership that has characterised the past four months. This is the beginning and not the end of that process.
	"The challenge is to make the NHS once again the healthcare system that the world most envies. Now, with the money being invested, the reforms can follow. Therefore, we can proclaim loud and clear that the idea of decent healthcare, based not on one's wealth or position but on one's need and suffering, is not an old-fashioned principle that has had its day but is, rather, a timeless principle that this generation has found the courage to reinvigorate for the modern world. I commend the plan to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made earlier today by the Prime Minister. As the House knows well, over the course of the past few weeks, the noble Baroness and I have dealt with a number of such Statements emanating from the Prime Minister. I have to say that this is the first one of any real substance. Compared to the banalities of the annual report or even the one about the G8 Summit earlier this week, this Statement is very much worth dealing with.
	Of course, that is why the Prime Minister elbowed aside the Secretary of State and decided to make the Statement himself. Therefore, I express my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. The House has come to appreciate his deep knowledge of healthcare and I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity to make the Statement today.
	In essence--and I know that the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying this--much of the Statement atones for and, indeed, repudiates the policies pursued in the first years of this Government, for which the noble Baroness herself bears some responsibility. In that sense, it is particularly appropriate that she should be making the Statement this afternoon in this House. This must also be one of those eye-catching areas, referred to in the infamous leaked memo, with which the Prime Minister wanted to be associated as closely as possible.
	The Statement deals with our most important national service. The last Conservative government gave the NHS record levels of support and the next Conservative government will do the same. We have made clear that we shall match whatever spending the Government commit to the support of healthcare in Britain. Therefore, the debate is not about how much we shall spend but about how it will be spent. We are becoming familiar enough with this Government to know that we shall need to study the small print with great care before we can reach a final conclusion on that.
	Is it not extraordinary that this Statement was not the Statement made three years ago? During the election the Prime Minister said that there were 24 hours to save the NHS. Since then we have seen three wasted years in which many of the best initiatives of the last government have been torn up for narrow political reasons and precious little else has been done. One has only to look at the present day realities. Waiting lists to see a consultant are up by 154,000; 80 per cent of health authorities report that more patients are waiting over a year for their operations; the number of heart bypass operations has fallen for the first time in 25 years; and, as the Prime Minister's Statement acknowledged, morale among staff in the service is exceptionally low.
	As we now know, the Prime Minister's closest adviser has written:
	"TB has not delivered. He said he would improve the NHS but instead things have got worse".
	Quite! Therefore, we must all think that this Statement marks a new beginning--a real break away from the course plotted in 1997 and 1998--and, so far as it does, it will have our strong support.
	We welcome, for example, the help given to older people in nursing homes--a measure that we had been calling for. We congratulate Professor Sutherland and the Royal Commission, who are the real authors of this proposal. However, will the noble Baroness explain where the boundaries are drawn between personal care, for which the NHS will not pay, and nursing care, for which it now will? For example, how much care for an Alzheimer's disease patient is classed as personal care and how much as nursing care? Will bathing or feeding a dementia patient be personal and paid for, as the Royal Commission suggested, or will it be disallowed as nursing care? Has a decision been taken by Her Majesty's Government on where the line will be drawn?
	We welcome other aspects of this Statement. We welcome the additional responsibilities given to nurses. Professionals, such as pharmacists, nurses and members of the professions supplementary to medicine, have long been under-used in the NHS. We welcome the renewed commitments to care for serious conditions, such as cancer and heart disease. We welcome the additional resources for healthcare. And we hope that the money is used wisely and that better patient care will be the result.
	However, the Prime Minister seemed unclear about his attitude to the private sector. On the one hand, he extends a ban on trained consultants working in the private sector; on the other, he talks of co-operation in treating patients. Is it not about time that the Government got over their schizophrenia with regard to private health and acknowledged and embraced it as part of our national resource, to be used wherever it is of service to NHS patients, always free, of course, at the point of use? Bluntly, can the noble Baroness tell us unequivocally this afternoon that she welcomes the existence of the private sector in health in this country?
	Now that there is no argument about lack of resources, will the Government restore GPs' freedom, abolished last year, to send patients to the hospital of their choice? And will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the waiting list initiative remains a core of the Government's policy on health? And when the Prime Minister declares an end to what he calls the "postcode lottery for drug prescribing", can the noble Baroness confirm that that will apply to the prescription of drugs for patients of chronic conditions, such as, specifically, MS?
	We shall wait to see how the plan works. If it is to work, it will do so only because of the skill and dedication of the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the NHS. We on this side of the House share in paying our tribute to them. However, if I have one nagging worry about this Statement and about this policy, it is that the Government trust them too little in some respects and trust centralisation too much.
	The Government abandoned local initiatives when they scrapped GP fundholding and the autonomy of NHS trusts. Yet many of the best initiatives in the NHS have come from local innovation. I hope that the noble Baroness can confirm that it is not the Government's aspiration to move to an entirely salaried GP service. I hope, too, that she can confirm that, in centralising GP and consultant contracts, they will not lose their personal concern for the individual patient and freedom of action that has always characterised the best in healthcare.
	This afternoon, the Prime Minister, and the noble Baroness in this House, made an important statement of intent. It requires examination and further debate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to indicate her approval--if not definitely conclude that it will happen--for a debate to take place in this House when we return in the autumn so that the Statement can be properly judged. It is very important that this House, particularly with the great expertise that exists within it, should be allowed to take a view.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made elsewhere by the Prime Minister. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in only one major respect: it is a pity that this Statement was not made two or three years ago. History will say that the great error was that the Chancellor committed himself to the spending plans that he inherited. Over the past two or three years, the National Health Service has deteriorated as a result of inadequate spending.
	However, the tone of my remarks, which I hope will be echoed elsewhere, is that the Statement and the plan deserve a generous welcome. It is the best statement of policy that I have seen from this Government. I hope that it will receive wide support. We are all in the business of politics and I fully understand that there will be argument about the detail. It will be the duty of this House and another place to monitor the progress of the plan. I shall return to that point. Having said that, however, I hope that there will be a genuine attempt to find a consensus among all parties that will enable the national health service staff at every level to get on with the job.
	I note that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, effectively gave an undertaking on the quantum--in other words, he said that the Conservatives would not spend less--but he went on to imply that there might be major changes in the direction of the spending. Of course, one cannot deny the right of any opposition party to think of alternative ways of spending, but it would be a great mistake on this occasion to look for reasons to disagree with the proposals, rather than reasons to go along with them. Agreement will give the National Health Service the stability that it requires.
	Of course, we can argue about the past. For a quarter of a century, from 1948, we believed that our national health service was the best in the world. We were living on sentiment, because no government did enough to give it a proper future. In the end, it was limping and falling behind. Then there was another quarter of a century of positive neglect. I do not want to argue about who was responsible. Political parties did not give the necessary leadership in saying that it is impossible to maintain the quality of the National Health Service that the nation requires unless the costs are met. Those costs ultimately fall on the taxpayer and on no one else. It would have been far better if we had been honest about that throughout that long period.
	I say that because successive governments have fiddled with management and structure to avoid the central issue. However justified some of the changes may have been, as are further changes now, there is no escaping the fact that the National Health Service cannot be put on a proper basis and meet its agreed objective without the resources being made available to it. I ask for consistency over a considerable period of time in the availability of resources, and some consistency in objectives and the means of delivering them.
	Let us recognise that mistakes will be made. Some priorities may change. That is the nature of medicine. There will be advances and events in medicine and technology that we shall need to take account of. However, within that framework, there will still be a great deal of room for giving the NHS support on all sides. I hope that that will be done.
	No one should seek to restore the past and move back to 1948, more than half a century ago. I take it from what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said that the principles set out in the Statement are endorsed on all sides. Those objectives--that need, not wealth should determine the availability of healthcare and that that care should be the very best--should be common to us all. They are repeated at the end of the Statement, with reference to the poorest and the better-off. It is shaming that the poorest in this country have a worse standard of healthcare than those who are comfortably off and know where to go to get considerably better care. We must apply ourselves to that issue. That means that a great deal more must be done in the areas of most need.
	It might be said that we find it easy to support the plan because, for the most part, it is consistent with Liberal Democrat policies. However, even if it were not, we should try very hard to examine each issue on its merits and see whether we can support the plan.
	I have two points to make. The first is on long-term care--an issue that is familiar to the Leader of the House and on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We believe that the Royal Commission's majority report was right: we should not separate nursing from personal and social care. More to the point, we do not believe that the policy will work. That is one of the proposals in the plan that, in the end, will come unstitched.
	The second point that needs to be looked at carefully is the role and effectiveness of public/private partnerships. We should remain sceptical about their effectiveness and about whether they are the best and cheapest way of getting the money required for the investment on which I hope that we are agreed.
	Apart from sharing the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that an early debate would be welcome, despite our heavy programme, my only question for the noble Baroness is how the Government intend to monitor and audit the process that they have begun today. We all want it to succeed. How can we ensure that it does and how will progress be reported to Parliament?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome for the Statement. In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made his own point by saying that it was a Statement of substance. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, went further, saying that it was the best policy programme put forward by the Government since the election. I endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the knowledge and understanding of my noble friend, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but with all due respect to my noble friend, the serious and substantive nature of the policy statement makes it worthy of the Prime Minister's involvement.
	Both noble Lords have to some extent ignored the opening paragraphs of the Statement, which deal with the economic situation and the reasons why the Government are coming forward with the Statement now. As we have said many times, including at the time of the recent Comprehensive Spending Review proposals, the Government have now enabled this level of public investment in the health service, which was agreed at the time of the Budget, by achieving a stable economic platform.
	The past four months have been spent in a collaborative process, as was mentioned in the Statement, with members of the professions, members of the public, members of the voluntary sector and people representing NHS staff, to produce this comprehensive plan. It has been brought forward now rather than in 1997 because of the state of the economy that we inherited, in which 42 per cent of public expenditure went on financing debt and on social security payments. We have changed that to the extent that the figure is now 17 per cent. That has enabled a real-terms rate of investment in the health service of 6 per cent a year, making it possible for us to make substantive and important changes.
	The questions of detail about GP contracts and the way in which consultants and others are employed are relevant, but the point about the relationship with the private sector is clearly set out in the Statement and in the detail of the report. The Government have said that where there is extra capacity in the private sector that can enable health service patients to be treated quickly and appropriately, particularly at times when the health service is under pressure, such as in the winter months, that extra capacity should be used.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used the word "schizophrenia". There is nothing split-minded about the question of the private healthcare industry and the concerns that the Government have about consultants. I think that most people will understand that that is a pragmatic approach to using the resources of the private healthcare system within the overall healthcare economy. On the other hand, if one considers the enormous expenses invested by the taxpayers to train doctors in the health service and take them on beyond undergraduate education to the point at which they achieve consultant appointments, it seems to me perfectly legitimate to say that they should then invest their time for a period of years exclusively in the health service. If they then have opportunities to take on private practice, that is something which they can in turn enjoy. But the concept of a return on the taxpayers' investment in this extremely long and complicated training, in the form of a reinvestment of their very high skills into the health service, is generally acceptable to both members of the public and to the medical profession itself.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about issues related to prescribing and individual types of disease and medical conditions to which these would apply. Of course, under the national service frameworks and the development of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and its work on recommending ways in which treatment should be applied in every part of the country, all conditions will over time be able to achieve this uniform part of treatment and care. One of the criticisms most vociferously expressed by patients all over the country is that their expectations of what they will receive in one particular postcode will not be the same as in another. The development of these national service frameworks will, of course, lead to much greater stability and uniformity of treatment and care in that way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked me how these new standards will be monitored. That is a rather complicated question, which I am delighted to answer in precis. However, it is a question to which we may usefully return. The current measures of performance are contained within the so-called performance assessment framework. These will be extended, because they presently apply basically to health authorities and it is thought appropriate that they should be extended to all NHS trusts, which would, of course, include all district general hospitals as well as primary care trusts. That system will therefore be extended.
	As I said in the Statement, it will be monitored by the Commission for Health Improvement, and the Audit Commission will work with the Commission for Health Improvement to achieve that monitoring. We hope that in time this will result in a progression to a situation in which the very best of NHS practice, which certainly occurs in many parts of the country, can be extended throughout the whole of the system. One sadness about the NHS at the moment is that there are often pockets of extraordinarily good practice that are not spread around throughout the system. Monitoring by an organisation such as the Commission for Health Improvement, working on the basis of the system which I previously described, with national service frameworks in place to enable particular standards of care and treatment to be expected and provided by all hospitals and general practitioners, should enable proper benchmarking and proper dissemination of good standards throughout the system.
	A number of questions were asked about the details of the organisation, including the questions relating to prescribing to which I have referred. Overall, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about prescribing is "yes".
	With regard to the question about the relationship between personal care and nursing services, the issue of agreeing how one defines a service that is delivered under the nursing care arrangement and one which, as the noble Lord rightly said, could possibly be described as personal care, has always been a grey area. What has now been rather sensibly decided is that, instead of trying to demarcate between different services, it should be understood that all care provided by a registered nurse should be eligible for the free treatment arrangements. That defines it more by way of the person who is giving the care rather than by some artificially demarcated system of services, and I know that the Government and the health service together feel that that is a more useful way in which to approach it.
	I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke as he did about the overall and universal way in which we hope that this will be taken forward to improve healthcare and to improve the situation in which we have gross inequalities in standards of health in various parts of our community. In my view, one of the most hopeful and inspiring parts of the report is that which contains the signatures right at the beginning of this document. They cover everybody who is involved in the provision of healthcare and the leaders of health services in this country, all of whom have put their signatures to this document, which very clearly sets out the core principles and the NHS mission statement, to use that inelegant word, which lie behind the health service and which will continue to represent its values in the modern setting of the 21st century. They range from the President of the Royal College of Physicians to chief executives and chairpersons of individual, voluntary organisations. That creates a universal accord for the virtue of continuing, delivering, promoting and improving publicly-funded healthcare in this country, which I am sure the vast majority of our citizens want and expect.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, on a day when we have heard much about improvements to the health service, can the noble Leader of the House assure us that, in the abolition of postcode prescribing, NICE will not result in a levelling down rather than a levelling up? In particular, can she comment on the imminent announcement of the multiple sclerosis Beta Interferon NICE decision? Can she assure me that that will not be slipped out quietly in the shadow of this report?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot comment on the noble Baroness's final point. As I understand it, the Government have not yet received this. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment on it.
	On the noble Baroness's overall point regarding levelling down, of course that will not be the case. The whole point of the national clinical frameworks, as devised and set out by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, is precisely to incorporate both clinical excellence and cost-effectiveness when considering the matter of prescribing.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. I also welcome the commitment now demonstrated by the Government to making the NHS responsive to the needs of patients and helping NHS staff to deliver the care. These are radical reforms, and I support much of what is contained in the plan.
	Consultant and specialist registrar expansion is most welcome. We know from today's Question Time that more consultants are needed in the service. However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness if a stop will now be put to the current round of reductions of specialist registrars in training that is recommended in respect of some of the specialities. If a stop is not put to it, there will be difficulty in filling consultant expansion.
	I also welcome the recommendation in the plan for the funding of specialist registrars from central funds. The current arrangement of 50 per cent of the funding coming from postgraduate deeds and 50 per cent from the trust is not working satisfactorily. Many specialist registrar posts are not currently being filled.
	In relation to specialist registrar training, I was, as the current chairman of the Specialist Training Authority, a little surprised to read the proposal to establish a medical education standards board to replace the current Specialist Training Authority and the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Education in General Practice. Nevertheless, although I welcome the proposal to establish a board with a wider representation from the professions, the NHS and the lay public, I hope that the Minister will agree that an opportunity will be provided to those currently responsible for running the two competent authorities on postgraduate medical education to take part.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his authoritative thinking about some of these issues. As he will be aware, all the concerns about registrar training and training for particular specialties are being looked at by the overall workforce planning initiative of the NHS. As I understand it from the document, it is proposed that there should be 1,000 more specialist registrars by 2004 and those will be targeting key specialties. That will obviously deliver a further acceleration in the number of consultants later in the decade.
	As I said in the Statement, one of the advantages which those who have written the Statement and worked on it in government have experienced is the enormously co-operative and collaborative part played by the medical profession and the different specialists who have taken part in developing that plan. As I also said when repeating the Statement, the Government regard that as the beginning, not the end, of that process. It is our intention that this matter should be taken forward on a collaborative basis.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, those of us who hold at heart the best interests of the NHS and, indeed, do not believe that private medicine is the route for its salvation will support the broad thrust of the plan before us today. There will be some disappointment, however, in terms of the treatment of older people, as my noble friend indicated, and the failure to accept the recommendations on personal care.
	There is one particular issue in addition to that in terms of the limits on means testing for those entitled to accommodation costs in nursing and residential homes. Will the noble Baroness comment on that? There is also a considerable gap in terms of the treatment of those in hospices. There seems to be no mention of palliative or terminal care. That is an essential part of our health and social care. I wonder why that particular gap should exist.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invites me to repeat what I said in reply to the two noble Lords who spoke first. The Government are making an unprecedented new investment over the next three years in improving old people's services by making them more responsive and more fairly funded. The Government's investment will cover the costs of the Royal Commission's recommendations and there is no shortfall in the proposals which the Government have made against those made by the Royal Commission. But the Government have decided that making personal care universally free is not the best use of those resources.
	I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the question of hospices. I too am not familiar with any detailed recommendations on that work but I recognise its importance. If there are proposals in the report which I have not yet read about or ancillary proposals, I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government deserve warmest congratulations on a highly constructive and tremendously impressive set of proposals? She must have been very proud to announce them. They are great.
	I have just one reservation. Is my noble friend aware that there is a great deal of anxiety among certain disabled people about charging for personal care, mentioned earlier? In point of fact, there is no real difference between nursing care and personal care because people need that personal care because of their sickness or disability. There is no real difference whatever. Will the Government reconsider that point?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his first comments. I was very proud to be able to repeat the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, I realise that I have walked into a situation which should properly be for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, given the enormous amount of work which he has done in this field in the past two years. It is a great privilege for me because, as the Statement said, this is part of the fundamental principles of a civilised society: to try to make the reforms of the health service work in the way which this outline report will now do when it is developed in detail. The Government's reputation will last on this for many generations.
	On the point about charging people, I must repeat to my noble friend the point which I made to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Government decided that while making a major investment in the care of old people, which goes beyond that recommended by the Royal Commission, it was not the best use of resources to try to demarcate in the way which I hoped I explained earlier between the types of care being offered, one category being personal care and the other being nursing care.
	I know that that is not entirely satisfactory and may be difficult to implement on the ground. But if we identify those services which are offered free as those being offered by registered nurses in whatever environment and surroundings they offer those services, then that is a major step forward which I know my noble friend will welcome.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I too hope that these proposals will succeed. There is one proposal which I do not think the noble Baroness mentioned but which was mentioned on television this morning; namely, that newly qualified consultants employed within the National Health Service should for the first seven years not take private patients. If that is not the proposal, that is splendid.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the reason that I shook my head is that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was not here when I gave a very detailed answer to that point when it was raised on an earlier question. I shall be delighted to repeat it. It seems that I am invited not to repeat it.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that assurance.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood on both occasions. The point I was making was that I had answered the questions about the way in which consultants would be asked to work only for the health service immediately after they qualified. I was not responding to the point that the television programme was inaccurate. As far as the noble Lord described it, the television programme was accurate.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I welcome the plans and the report and I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I want to make two points.

Noble Lords: Order, order!

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am sorry, I want to ask two questions. I welcome the fact that nursing care--looking after old people--will now be free at the point of delivery, wherever the person is. But could not that be defined sufficiently broadly to encompass care which needs to be given or supervised by a fully qualified nurse? As the numbers of old people increase, there will have to be some instances of delegation to people who are not fully state registered. We do not fall into little boxes, particularly as we age. Many people suffering from multiple pathologies get weaker and stronger as they are cared for during treatment and rehabilitation.
	The other point is about children. The RCN, among other bodies, has pointed to the urgent need for children and young people to have an explicitly key focus at all levels of health policy.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government agree with the point which the noble Baroness has just made about the need for a special focus on children and young people's services.
	On the previous point, I fear that I am becoming repetitive. I can only repeat what I said to my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Perhaps the noble Baroness will refer to paragraph 2.9 on page 11 of the report which states:
	"In the future, the NHS will meet the costs of registered nurse time spent on providing, delegating or supervising care in any setting. This is a wider definition of nursing care than proposed in the note of dissent to the Royal Commission report which suggested that it should include those tasks which only a registered nurse could undertake".

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the debate has focussed on care of the elderly. Have maternity services been considered at all? The Statement said that for each of the main conditions there will be a national framework of standards. The National Service Framework for Mental Health has been successful. In the debate that took place with members of staff in the National Health Service, were maternity services rated as a high priority in the order of national frameworks that will be established?
	I welcome the idea of care trusts, where local councils and primary care trusts merge. Will those be new organisations? If not, where will the corporate governance, the accountability, lie?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not believe that maternity services as such are contained in the national plan. I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Baroness what private discussions were held with National Health Service staff. My suspicion is that if National Health Service staff had wanted to focus on those services and had wanted to advocate them with great vigour, they would have been contained in the plan. That is not to say that they did not advocate something that it is worth while looking at, but it was not something that emerged as a major national priority. That is probably because, on the whole, maternity services are rather good.
	The next national service framework, as the noble Baroness may be aware, will be in relation to older people. The Government have not made a decision about the national service framework to be developed after that. It probably would be useful if other priorities were set out and perhaps in that context maternity services would be included.
	I understand that one way of looking at the care trusts--this may be familiar to the noble Baroness with her great knowledge of the organisation of health and social care in the United Kingdom--relates to the way in which social care and health boards are organised; for example, in Northern Ireland there is an integrated provision of services and governance seems to be satisfactory.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this afternoon is a very moving occasion for me. I sat in this House, which was then the House of Commons, while the entire National Health Service Bill was passed. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the way in which the plan and programme, which I have now read, have been put before the House. I also congratulate the Opposition on the honourable part that they have played this afternoon in sustaining the Government who will need all the help they can get from all quarters of the country in order that the plan may be achieved. What Aneurin Bevan started in 1948 now has the strong probability of being furthered to the good of the country as a whole.

Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I strongly welcome the Statement, particularly the significant increase in expenditure of more than a third over the next few years. However, I do not agree with the comments that National Health Service expenditure should have been greatly increased three years ago because, when the Government came into power, there was a deficit of £28 billion. Nevertheless, the Government have had three years to consider these proposals. Included in the proposals is an increase of 7,000 in the number of doctors. Will the Government and the noble Baroness consider what the public should be told about the fact that it will take between five and seven years to train 7,000 new doctors and, therefore, they must not expect quick results under these new plans?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. I believe that I said in the Statement that such matters must be related to the time for training and the time for improving the labour force, if one can describe it that way, of the health service in all professions and in all healthcare areas. We are building on a situation where already more doctors and nurses are in training and more doctors and nurses are being recruited into the health service than three years ago. The additional number that has been announced this afternoon is based on a position that is already strong.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred in the Statement to 100 new hospital schemes over the next 10 years. Are they to be funded under the PFI initiative or centrally? In relation to her reference to run-down premises--I draw on my own experience as a chairman of an NHS trust in London for several years--can she tell the House whether the system of capital allocations will be changed to allow those that may have to last for 10 years or more to be suitably built, rebuilt, added to, or adapted in a way that meets the aspirations to which the Statement refers?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the expansion of buildings and facilities, to which the noble Lord rightly draws attention, will be achieved by a combination of the schemes that are exclusively PFI and other methods of funding. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that within the plan, although not within the Statement, was the fact that this autumn £30 million will be given to hospitals to clean up wards and so on--in other words, to have a spring clean in October.

Lord Winston: My Lords, the whole nation will be deeply grateful to the Government for the increased spending on the health service, for their focus on the fabric of the health service and for their focus on, and, above all, their support for, the staff of the health service. It is greatly cheering to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, make the point that this should not be a political football and that we should try to find an accord on all sides so that we can establish the best way of managing the health service.
	Perhaps I may make a specialised plea for one group of patients who are rather neglected, who are subject to the postcode lottery and who, in many cases, are subject to inordinate waiting lists and a great unevenness of practice. Given the Government's commitment to family values and the importance of the family, can my noble friend the Leader of the House give us some assurance that people with reproductive difficulties will be better catered for in the forthcoming health service?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for the plan overall. On his special pleading point for his own specialty, which we understand, I am sure that he realises that some of the arrangements that are being made for the commissioning of specialist services should iron out the problems that he has described to your Lordships' House relating to "postcode treatment" of people who have particular problems. That is something that could be addressed by a national service framework and, as in the case of maternity services mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, this could be a good candidate for future work in that area.
	I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point that this must be a collaborative effort by everyone involved in healthcare. I recommend to the entire House the statement of principles at the beginning of the plan which sets out, in the most sensible and clear way, the basis on which the plan will be taken forward. As I said originally in answer to another question, it is signed by all those who have a particular responsibility for delivering healthcare, not only on a non-political basis, but also on a professional and a patient-centred basis. We all hope to achieve that.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	My Lords, the first four items in the report were first put to the House in the committee's last report which was debated on 21st June. At the end of the debate I withdrew the Motion to approve the report, partly in response to complaints that the report did not contain enough information. At its most recent meeting, the committee reaffirmed its approval of these items, which are now reported back to your Lordships but in greater detail. The final four items in the report are put before the House for the first time. I do not intend to speak to any of them now but I shall try to answer any questions Members may have about them.
	As I believe the House will expect, I now turn to item 5, the proposal to appoint a consultant to lead a review of the management structure of the House and the structure for taking decisions about its services. After this proposal was criticised during the debate on 21st June, both the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee reconsidered the matter at great length. For the reasons set out in the report, the committee remains convinced that a review is necessary. But as your Lordships will have seen from the report, the terms of the proposal have been revised and, in addition, we recommend that it should take place under the supervision of a small steering group of Peers.
	The financial management structures of the House have not been reviewed since they were put into place in the early 1990s when the two Houses assumed control of all parliamentary expenditure. In the last financial year, the budget for this House alone was £45 million. A review would help to assure the House that its services are being delivered efficiently and that its procurement procedures are robust enough to avoid the threat of litigation.
	As the report notes, the House of Commons may change the way in which it supervises the services which are shared between the two Houses, such as the Parliamentary Works Directorate. It seems sensible for this House to take any changes into account and to respond to them if necessary.
	I should also like to say a word on behalf of the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has been charged with the responsibility for delivering services for the House. He would welcome advice on these matters and, if for no other reason, Members may wish to permit him to seek the advice that he requires in order to discharge his responsibilities to the House. That is not intended to imply that the House is badly managed at present. However, although it is clearly the case that we have great expertise within the House, I would hope that we would not regard ourselves as the sole repository of all wisdom and knowledge on these matters or that we are not capable of benefiting from outside advice. A review would benefit from the involvement of someone with knowledge of modern management practices and who could approach the task without any preconceived views. That is why the committee recommends the appointment of Mr Braithwaite to conduct the review.
	As the report emphasises, the final decision on whether or not to implement any recommendations will be made by the House and its committees. But I appreciate the desire within the House to keep any review under its control, especially after the criticism of this proposal last time. The committee therefore proposes that a small steering group of Members of the House be appointed to supervise the review. I do not believe that the House has anything to fear from what is proposed, since decisions remain within the control of the House. On the contrary, I believe that improvements to our management structure can only be to the benefit of individual noble Lords and the House as a whole. I commend the report to the House.

Moved, That the sixth report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 97) be agreed to.--(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	1. Pay proposals for fast stream clerks and library clerks
	The Committee's fifth report informed the House that the Committee had agreed to new arrangements, developed in conjunction with the House of Commons, for paying clerks (recruited through the Civil Service competition for administrative grade civil servants) and library clerks. The report was criticised for lacking detail, which is as follows: the old pay range was £16,306 to £28,336 and the new pay range will be £20,000 to £27,500. Progression will be by three annual increments, subject to satisfactory performance. Promotion should normally be after four years, subject to satisfactory performance.
	2. Salaries of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Committees
	The Committee's fifth report informed the House that the Committee had approved revised salaries for the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. The report was criticised for lacking detail, which is as follows: the salary of the Chairman of Committees is increased from £64,429 to £66,294; and the salary of the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees is increased from £60,032 to £61,773. Both of the increases are with effect from 1 April 2000, and are in line with changes to the salaries of Ministers and other paid office holders.
	3. Lords' reimbursement allowances
	The Committee's fifth report informed the House about changes to the motor mileage allowance and the bicycle allowance. From 1 April 2000 the motor mileage allowance was uprated in line with the retail price index to 52.5 pence per mile for the first 20,000 miles and 24.2 pence per mile thereafter (up 1.3 pence and 0.6 pence respectively); and the bicycle allowance was uprated to 6.7 pence per mile (up 0.2 pence).
	4. Commercial activities
	As stated in its fifth report, the Committee has agreed that the House of Lords should not be used by Members as a business address nor the name used for the promotion of any commercial activity.
	5. Appointment of a management consultant
	Previous recommendation
	In its fifth report the Committee recommended the appointment of Mr Michael Braithwaite "to undertake a review of the management structure and the structure, including the Committee structure, for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, which were introduced in the House of Lords in 1991-92 following the Ibbs reforms in the House of Commons".
	During the debate on the Committee's report on 21 June there was considerable criticism of the proposal. In particular, it was argued that not enough information had been provided about the proposal; that there was no need to look outside the House for advice; and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. The Chairman of Committees withdrew the Motion to approve the report, and said that the proposal would be reconsidered.
	At its meeting on 19 July the Committee considered the matter at length. For the reasons set out in this report the Committee remains convinced that a review is necessary, but it has revised its original recommendation to the House.
	Reasons for a review
	The proper resourcing of the House is of fundamental importance to its effectiveness. As the activities of the House continue to change and grow, and the expectations of Members increase, the Committee believes that a review would help to ensure better strategic planning for the future and effective management of the House's resources.
	The House's financial management structures have not been reviewed in detail since they were put in place nearly 10 years ago following the Ibbs reforms in the House of Commons. The reforms gave the two Houses much greater control over parliamentary expenditure, especially in relation to the maintenance of the parliamentary estate and printing. In the financial year 1999-2000, total expenditure by the House was £45 million. Many savings have already been achieved (especially in relation to printing) and better services provided, but the Committee considers that more could be done.
	In his role as accounting officer the Clerk of the Parliaments must be certain that value for money is secured in the provision of services for the House; and that the existing system of budgetary control is satisfactory. In his role as corporate officer of the House, he must also be sure that procurement and contracting procedures are sufficiently robust to avoid the threat of litigation 1 . A review would provide additional assurances to the Clerk of the Parliaments in the discharge of his responsibilities.
	None of this is intended to suggest that the House is poorly managed at present. But a review would ensure that the House's management structure operates to the very highest standards and that it is responsive to the increasing demands being made upon it.
	The House of Commons have already undertaken a review of their management structure, assisted by Mr Braithwaite, and the recommendations which resulted are now being implemented 2 . Additionally, Mr Braithwaite has just completed a second review for the House of Commons into the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate. While there are significant differences between the two Houses, this House should not ignore changes in the way the Commons may manage shared services such as the Parliamentary Works Directorate, which is responsible for works and the maintenance of the parliamentary estate, and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, which is responsible for the telephone network and the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN). Both are part-financed by the House of Lords.
	Furthermore, many Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the House's "domestic" committee structure 3 and their apparent failure to deliver all the improvements which Members would wish to have. A review should ensure that the House and its committees retain effective control over the delivery of its services and that the entire structure is responsive to the needs of Members, for example in relation to accommodation, which is the source of widespread dissatisfaction.
	Obtaining a fresh perspective, while retaining control of the review
	The Committee considers that a review would greatly benefit from the involvement of someone with in-depth knowledge of modern management practices and who could approach the task with an open mind and without pre-conceived views. The Committee therefore recommends that Mr Michael Braithwaite be appointed to lead the review. The final decision on whether to implement any recommendations will, of course, belong to the House's committees and ultimately to the House itself. There is no question that reforms affecting the House will be made without its prior approval.
	However, the Committee understands the desire to keep the review under the control and supervision of the House. The Committee therefore proposes that a small steering group of Members be appointed to supervise the review, and to act as a channel for comments from Members (the review will, in addition, involve interviews with Members). If the Committee's proposal is agreed to, such a steering group will be appointed before the start of the review. The Clerk of the Parliaments also proposes that two senior officers of the House (Rhodri Walters, the current Establishment Officer, and Brigadier Hedley Duncan, the Yeoman Usher) form part of Mr Braithwaite's team (a similar arrangement was made in the Commons).
	Costs
	The final cost of the review will depend on the time it takes to complete which, in turn, will depend largely on the number of interviews the review team is required to carry out. However, the cost of employing Mr Braithwaite is likely to be lower than other consultants with his experience because of the knowledge of Parliament he has acquired during his two reviews in the House of Commons. This knowledge will be particularly useful in relation to the services which the House shares with the Commons.
	Recommendation
	The Committee recommends that there should be "a review of the management structure and the structure for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, including the impact on the domestic Committee structure"; that the review should take place under the supervision of a small steering group composed of Members of the House; and that Mr Braithwaite should be appointed to lead the review.
	6. Steps of the Throne
	On 9 December 1999 the House agreed that hereditary Peers who are no longer Members of the House should be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne, but that the privilege should be reviewed before the end of the Session.
	The Committee found that between 10 January and 12 July, 46 hereditary Peers made use of the privilege on a total of 104 different occasions. There were 102 sitting days in the period in question, meaning that the privilege was used, on average, a shade over once per sitting day. The Committee concluded that the privilege was not being abused and that there was no reason at the present time to end it.
	The Committee recommends that hereditary Peers should continue to be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne. The privilege can be reviewed in the future.
	7. Judicial Fees and Security Money
	The Committee has agreed to increase the flat rate taxing fee, introduced at £25 on 1 April 1983, to £50; to increase the amount of security for costs set at £18,000 in April 1994 to £25,000; and to increase the other judicial fees payable (last set in 1995) by the following amounts:
	
		
			  Current Fee New Fee 
			 Petitions for leave to appeal - mandatory fees 
			 Presentation £ 500 £ 570 
			 Entering appearance £100 £115 
			 Petitions of appeal - mandatory fees 
			 Presentation (following successful petition for leave to appeal) £500 £570 
			 Presentation (not following petition for leave) £1,000 £1,140 
			 Entering appearance £200 £230 
			 Lodging statement and appendix and setting down £3,000 £3,420 
			 Petitions of appeal-occasional fees 
			 Waiver of security £100 £115 
			 First petition for extension of time £200 £230 
			 Second petition for extension £300 £340 
			 Third petition for extension £500 £570 
			 Fourth or subsequent petition for extension £1,000 
			 Other interlocutory petition, if agreed £200 £230 
			 Any interlocutory petition, if opposed £500 £570 
		
	
	8. Accommodation
	The Committee expressed its concern at the lack of progress which had been made in providing further office accommodation for Members. The occupation of 7 Little College Street in December 2000 and Millbank House in August 2001 will provide 180 new desks for Members, and staff of the House will also move into Millbank House, creating more office space for Members within the Palace.
	The Committee is well aware that this is only a start. At our next meeting, we will review the disparity in the accommodation available to the two Houses within the Palace itself on the basis of information provided by Black Rod on the amount of office accommodation and other facilities available to the two Houses.
	9. Smoking policy in Millbank House
	The Committee agreed that smoking should only be permitted in private offices if all of the occupants of a room agree; and that smoking should not be permitted in any of the communal areas of the building (including the entrance lobby, the library, the refreshment facility, the conference room and corridors, staircases and lifts).
	1. The House of Commons has incurred damages and costs following litigation over the tender for the facade of Portcullis House.
	2. Review of Management and Services, Report to the House of Commons Commission by a team lead by Mr Michael Braithwaite (July 1999, HC 745).
	3. The "domestic" committees are the Offices Committee, its four Sub-Committees on Finance and Staff; Administration and Works; Refreshment; and Library and Computers, and the Advisory Panel on Works of Art.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for that statement. Before I turn to the main issue of the consultant, perhaps I can put two main points to the House on paragraph 1 and the pay proposals for fast-stream Clerks. I strongly agree with that and am delighted to support it. We need good quality Clerks and I am very happy with that proposal.
	In paragraph 2, under salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman, I have a specific question which was not answered last time. We are now told that the increase is from around £64,000 to £66,000, back-dated to 1st April 2000. That is a perfectly reasonable increase, which I support. But, according to the annual report and accounts, a year earlier the Chairman's salary was £54,000. So the increase during the course of the year was £10,000. I do not know whether that is an oversight but I shall be glad to know how that happened. I see the Leader of the Opposition nodding, indicating he too seeks a reply. It may be that there is some special reason for that £10,000 increase. If so, perhaps the committee could find a special reason for increasing the expenses for your Lordships.
	Let me turn immediately to the main issue, which I raised last time; that is, the question of the consultant. I am obliged to the Chairman of Committees for the further information. We have now heard, and read in the report, the case for a review. Let me say at once that I strongly agree with that; after 10 years there can be little doubt about it. The case for a consultant, however, is an entirely different matter. The last time we discussed this, my impression was that most, if not all, of your Lordships agreed with me that we did not need a consultant.
	We now see in the report that the main case put forward for a consultant is that the House,
	"would greatly benefit from the involvement of someone with in-depth knowledge of modern management practices and who could approach the task with an open mind and without preconceived views".
	I hope the committee will not mind my saying that that is an insult to your Lordships. We are now told, as a way out of this difficulty, that we are to set up a small steering committee--presumably made up of Members of your Lordships' House with open minds. I shall be glad to know how they will select that type of Peer.
	We are told that the consultant will lead the review. What will he do? One thing he will do is consult. That is what most consultants do. They then tell us what those they consulted recommend. That will be the case here. Except, as we saw from the House of Commons report, the Members will be consulted. So presumably the consultant will consult noble Lords with or without open minds; then the consultant and the committee will come back to your Lordships' House with the result.
	But the Offices Committee does not simply recommend a consultant; it recommends a specific consultant--Mr Braithwaite. Let me make it clear that I do not know the gentleman. I imagine he is a good consultant; he gets paid reasonably well. So the Offices Committee will appoint him, despite the fact that it has not used the rules that normally apply; namely, the Nolan rules. The committee recommends we appoint that gentlemen with or without the Nolan rules. Why? Because he did a great job in the Commons.
	I understand that we want to begin the review as soon as possible. But the gentleman concerned was appointed in the Commons in October 1998. He reported one parliamentary year later and that report was debated in January 2000. If we have such a review, with or without the consultant, can the Chairman of Committees ensure that some of the interim decisions are brought before your Lordships' House rather more quickly than happened in the other place?
	We are asked to support this review without being told what it will cost. The committee cannot tell us because it does not know how long it will take. Perhaps we could be told how much an hour or a day will be paid. I can tell your Lordships that the cost to the other place of employing Mr Braithwaite was £77,000, "of identifiable expenditure". That is a new phrase. So £77,000 was "identifiable", but we have no idea what was unidentifiable. No one could tell us that. But that figure included the cost of printing a 179-page report. So the amount we are being asked to agree to will be in that region. The report in the other place was actually drafted in its entirety by a senior Clerk. So perhaps that will stand as a warning to the Clerk of the Parliaments to consider who will draft this report here if we agree to it.
	Unless noble Lords have changed their minds from what was implied the last time we discussed this matter, the setting up of a steering committee, with or without a consultant, is crucial. If that committee was appointed by your Lordships--the Leader of the Opposition shows surprise that I suggest that--it could employ a consultant or an adviser, but that should be for that committee to decide.
	Judging by the way that these matters progress, this is likely to finish up being dealt with by the usual channels. I hope, therefore, that we shall at least be given an assurance that the committee will consist of senior Back-Benchers. They are the Members upon whom we can rely to speak for us--that is to say, for your Lordships' House. If I may say so, with the greatest possible respect, this should not be a matter for the usual channels, or even the usual authorities. The committee must represent us.
	So I hope that we shall be given an assurance that, whatever happens, we shall have a speedy interim report that can be dealt with properly, and which includes, for example, the question of accommodation referred to in paragraph 8 of this report. We know that there are some 40 rooms in this House that are still used by the House of Commons, despite the fact that the other place now has 200 extra rooms at a cost of £1 million a piece. I hope that we shall not be reminded of the terrible cost about which we are talking, when the other place still has--and will not give up--40 rooms that should be available to us. I trust that that matter will be dealt with quickly by the proposed committee.
	I rest there what case I have. I hope that we shall receive assurance that, whatever happens, we shall have an early debate on these matters. I also hope that I shall receive support from all parts of the House for what I have said.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has put the case far better than I could have done. However, I should like briefly to support the burden of his remarks as regards paragraph 5 of the Select Committee's report. It seems to me to be rather perverse for this report to suggest that there should be a committee whose job would be to steer this review. If that committee has as its purpose the job of steering the review, it seems at least curious that part of that steering exercise should be taken from it and determined before its members have even been appointed. If the job of the committee is to steer that review, would it not be much more sensible for its members to be appointed and for consideration to take place thereafter on who should be appointed to undertake the nuts and bolts of the review, so that that person can report to the committee? In that way, we would have some assurance that the committee is not just a piece of window dressing to enable the powers that be--whoever they may be nowadays--to get through their pre-agreed solution.
	It was extremely helpful of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees--indeed, the House should be most grateful to him--to take into account to such a degree the concern that many of us expressed on the previous occasion such a report was debated on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether the noble Lord will be able to consider the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett; namely, that, if the steering committee is to perform its task properly, it would give a number of us a considerable amount of reassurance that the House is in control of its own affairs if the proposed committee were commissioned to examine who might best help it to carry out the review.
	It may well be that Mr Braithwaite will be the right man for the job. In fact, there is a good argument for that because, I dare say, a good deal of what another consultant might be required to do would duplicate the work that Mr Braithwaite has already accomplished for another place. Indeed, we might economise on his services in that respect. I believe that this House would be well served if it were possible for the steering committee to be set up first. The committee should then consider who best to appoint to assist it in this task. Thereafter, as is the way with modern appointments, the committee should, if it thinks it right, hold a suitable beauty parade. In that way, we would be assured that the committee had exercised due diligence in deciding upon the appointment.
	As I said, the House should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who, as we know, is vigilant in such matters. Indeed, his experience as a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, let alone as Chief Secretary to the Treasury under a previous government, affords him a considerable amount of authority in matters financial.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I speak as a relatively new member of this committee. As a simple soldier, I have found myself somewhat perplexed by its proceedings and its organisation. I believe that this is the time for me to say so. The committee seems to have sub-committees that are, apparently, totally autonomous. They do not report, and are not subordinate, to the Offices Committee. Moreover, up until now, it seems to me--and I speak with the greatest respect to the Chairman of Committees--that the Offices Committee has been acting as little more than a rubber stamp as regards certain proposals that come before this House.
	The last time that the Select Committee reported to the House I had some reservations about the report, but I kept them to myself. However, when I heard the somewhat acrimonious exchanges that took place at that time in the Chamber, it seemed to me that some of these matters needed to be reconsidered. Those matters have now been looked at and a fuller report is before the House which I hope is more acceptable to your Lordships than the earlier one.
	Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the matter about which everyone is most concerned; namely, the proposed appointment of a management consultant. I have to confess that I, too, have had reservations about this and have made them clear in the committee. I am dubious about the need for outside advice. It seems to me that there are people in this House who have the kind of qualifications that are needed to make the sort of recommendations required to improve the structure, the management, and the committee structure of this House.
	The argument about the outside consultant having experience of the House of Commons is not entirely persuasive to me. The House of Commons is an entirely different place with a completely different history and traditions. I do not believe that we should place too much emphasis on the experience of a consultant as regards his activities in another place. However, the majority of the committee decided that this appointment was desirable. Being a good democrat, I went along with that decision. Indeed, I am persuaded that there should be a review of some kind. If the majority of the committee want to appoint a management consultant, I am persuaded that that is the proposal and the recommendation that should be made to your Lordships.
	However, my only reason for being so persuaded at this stage is because of the two important qualifications that have now been introduced into the report. The first is that the review shall look at the management structure. It may be helpful to the House if I mention the exact words in the report. The recommendation states that there should be,
	"a review of the management structure and the structure for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, including"--
	this is the part that I wish to emphasise--
	"the impact on the domestic Committee structure".
	That is rather different from the original idea that the management consultant should look at the committee structure. Noble Lords will notice that this qualification is an important one. Whatever else the consultant looks at, it will stop short at,
	"the impact on the ... Committee structure".
	The second, and most important, qualification is the one that we have already discussed; namely, the matter of the steering group. I am persuaded that that will ensure that the House has control of whatever organisation is established to carry out the review. I should like to echo the feeling expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that this should be a committee of Cross-Benchers--

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Chalfont: I am sorry, my Lords; I meant to say Back-Benchers. However, as I am not a candidate for the job, I am sure that noble Lords will accept that as a slip of the tongue. But that is not to say that I believe that such a committee of Cross-Benchers would not be a good one. The committee should comprise Back-Benchers; it should not consist of either Front-Bench Members or others from the usual channels.
	Having made that point, I should stress that I am persuaded that such a review is needed. I hope, therefore, that we can find a way of going ahead and agreeing on how it should be done. It is important for us to know when and how this steering group is to be selected and appointed. I very much hope that the views of the noble Lords who have already spoken, as well as those of noble Lords who will speak shortly, are taken fully into account.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I wish to pursue points raised by my noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I am sure that Mr Braithwaite is an excellent man and I do not wish anything I say to impugn him in any respect. However, he has carried out a study of the House of Commons and there are certain matters that we should consider. My noble friend mentioned the report which Mr Braithwaite produced. The House of Lords' Offices Select Committee report states on page four that Mr Braithwaite,
	"has just completed a second review for the House of Commons into the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate".
	The "Parliamentary Works Directorate" is "parliamentese" for accommodation. Mr Braithwaite has carried out a review of accommodation in the Commons. I understand that that report will be published in September. With the best will in the world, I am sure that all the work that he has carried out has given him a mindset almost as a House of Commons person. I am sure that if he undertakes the job that we are discussing, he will find it difficult to adopt the flexibility which is needed.
	I inquired about 7 Little College Street and Millbank House which have been acquired for parliamentary use. I was informed in a Written Answer of 10th July that the annual rent over the road is £33.50 per square foot. The building has a 15-year lease; that is not terribly long. I then tabled a Question to ask how many square feet were involved. I was informed that the area comprised 28,500 square feet. That means that a rent is being paid of £1,035,000.
	My noble friend Lord Barnett said that there are 40 rooms in this House which are being used by Members of the House of Commons. I do not like to correct my noble friend but I walked along the second floor corridor this morning and discovered 43. There are 43 offices in our own premises occupied by Members of Parliament from the Commons and yet Portcullis House across the way is being opened up. All this has been examined by Mr Braithwaite. We are in a new situation now. We are becoming more accountable and, in many ways, more representative. We are no longer the poor relation of the other place. In our fight for more resources and better facilities we shall have to come to grips with the House of Commons over a number of matters. I should have thought that one of the first should be the issue of 43 Members of the Commons in offices on our own premises when we are looking for accommodation all over the place and paying rent over the way of £1 million a year.
	There is much public scrutiny now of that kind of expenditure. We have a duty to protect ourselves in this regard. I wonder whether a man who is so deeply immersed in the study of all aspects of the House of Commons can bring to bear the total objectivity which is needed. For once, we should think about ourselves and our reputation with the public.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I rather regret the trend of employing outsiders to inquire into our affairs. As far as concerns Parliament, this is a comparatively novel innovation. Many of us expressed reservations about the work of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. It is not that we object to the nature of the work that he is carrying out, but he is doing it from outside the House. Some of us thought that that was not the right way to proceed. I wonder whether appointing a consultant from outside the House is the right way to proceed in the matter we are discussing. Is it not better for noble Lords to conduct their own inquiries and look after their own affairs in these matters?
	On the question of accommodation, the plain fact is that we are appallingly provided for in this House. Most noble Lords do not even have a desk, never mind a room. Most Members of the Front Benches do not have a room. They are lucky if they share a desk in a room with others. Those shortcomings must be looked into and, I hope, addressed firmly and effectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has suggested, let us start with the 43 rooms within our building which I hope the other place will make available when it moves into the new, grand place over the road.
	I raise another point which is not directly mentioned in the report but which I believe comes within the description of facilities for Members of your Lordships' House; that is, the medical facilities available to Members of your Lordships' House. I believe that there are good medical facilities available to Members of the other place. I am told that the staff who man those facilities have specifically been told that they may not, except in exceptional circumstances, attend to noble Lords. Will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees confirm that that is the case? If that is the case, what is the rationale for that? It is not satisfactory, if that is the case.
	Finally, I mention one other point which arises from the report which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has brought before us. The report refers to the decision of the committee to allow our non-parliamentary colleagues--our former hereditary colleagues--to continue to sit on the Steps of the Throne, as was originally provided for. That is entirely right. However, will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees tell us what work is now being done to review the other facilities available to our former hereditary colleagues? I am one of those who felt that we did not do enough for our departing hereditary colleagues. I know that there is more than one respectable view on that but my view is that we ought to do more. I hope that we can do more. I hope that what is presently provided for will be reviewed on an urgent basis.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I hope that I may add a few words of support for the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I missed what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, called the acrimonious debate which took place on 21st June. However, having considered the report, I fully understand how it arose. I do not think that in retrospect any Member of the Offices Committee should feel at all upset or surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, raised these matters in the way that he did. However, I must confess that I was surprised that the issue arose in that way. I reflected on the debate of 10th May initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. There was a large measure of agreement in the House on that occasion in two respects. The first concerned what I might refer to as management. I said on that occasion:
	"I hope we can adopt a more efficient system for the management of our part of the Palace of Westminster. I have seldom sat through more unsatisfactory meetings than those of the Offices Committee of this House.--[Official Report, 10/5/00, col. 1587.]
	I think that the view was widely held in the House that something ought to be done about the way we manage our day-to-day affairs.
	The second respect concerned policy and scrutiny; that is, whether we were looking after our affairs in the proper way and, in particular, whether we were moving forward on the appointment of Select Committees and whether there were the resources available. The view that I mentioned, which was widely reflected in the debate on 10th May, I thought was reflected in the decision first of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee and then of the Offices Committee. It was a genuine attempt on the part of those present to address the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, had raised with the general approval of the House.
	Perhaps it was unfortunate--however, sometimes things work out this way--that the meeting of the Liaison Committee which addressed the question of committees took place on 26th June, but the report did not appear before the House until, I believe, 17th July. In a sense we got the cart before the horse. The House was not aware that progress was being made on the substance of the matter at a time when it was being asked to endorse the appointment of a consultant.
	I believe that lessons have been learnt from this matter. I am sympathetic--I cannot say more than that--to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the steering group should comprise Back-Benchers.
	I hope that the House will not itself attempt the role of management. We are not here as managers; we are here as legislators, as Members of Parliament. It is important that those who are appointed to manage the place are allowed to get on with the job. If this means the appointment of a management consultant, so be it--the decisions will still be made by this House, to which eventually his report will come.
	We are nearly at the end of the Session; I hope that we can now get on with it in the spirit of the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Of course there will be some doubt, some unease--we all admit that--but let us get on with it; let us not delay as so often, I am afraid, we are prone to do.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I have been a member of the Offices Committee for only a short period of time. It is one of the most remarkable committees that I have ever sat on in my life. If I were to disclose to your Lordships everything that went on, I doubt if you would believe me. However, I am not about to do that. What I will say is that your Lordships would benefit from a scrutiny of the minutes of that committee, in addition to the report it produces and the minutes of the sub-committees of that committee. When I went to the Library to ask for the minutes of the sub-committees, no one there knew if it had them--which shows how many Members of the House are aware that the minutes of the sub-committees are available to them, at some delay.
	As a result of that, I have learnt several things about the committee. First, members of that committee are far better informed, in my experience, than other Members of this House. Extraordinarily, they do not seem to realise that they are much better informed than other Members of this House. We have a serious problem in ensuring that information about the workings of the Offices Committee become available to all Members of the House.
	The second thing that I find interesting about the Offices Committee is that I am never sure what is decided. Under the benign, elegant and gentle chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, we discuss things--but nothing is ever put to a resolution or to a vote. I have therefore taken as a guiding principle that if anything I say is not contradicted by anyone, it is thereby to be endorsed by the whole committee. At least I hope that is right; we shall find out. The third thing, as I have said, is that the reports do not do justice to the committee.
	I confess that when I was first on the committee this proposal for a management consultant went through. I was a new boy; I was very diffident--as your Lordships will know--and I said nothing on the subject. I then read the report of the debate on the Floor of the House and I came to the view that the proposal could not be justified. I therefore spoke to that end at the previous meeting of the Offices Committee, where I was argued out of my position. I think I lost the argument in the committee and I now accept that it would be of value to this House to have the objective views of an outsider--to whose recommendations none of us is bound in any way. It would be beneficial to us to have a fresh, outside view, provided it is a guided scrutiny of our affairs.
	In my view, the most important part of the report produced by the Lord Chairman of Committees is contained in the very brief paragraph on accommodation. I am sure we all agree that the conditions in this House are simply intolerable. I have my views--I shall give them briefly--of what should be the minimum standards of accommodation in this House. First every Minister should have an office to himself or herself of a size appropriate to the status of that Minister. I can say that because I shall never be one again; I know that perfectly well. In other words, a Minister of State who has to entertain visiting ambassadors and visiting defence ministers should have an office of appropriate proportions.
	Secondly, all Front-Bench spokesmen of all opposition parties should have an office to themselves, if they want one, on the premises and accommodation for at least one secretary/researcher for each spokesman, as close as possible--it may not be possible--within the Palace of Westminster.
	As to the remainder of us, the humble Back-Benchers, many will want separate offices. I should tell the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that this is where I take issue with the minutes of the previous meeting of the Offices Committee. I raised then the need for a survey to be taken of all Members of the House to discover who wanted individual offices. Not everyone of course will want one-- some Members are more gregarious than others--but until we know how many Peers want individual offices, how many want provision for secretaries or researchers, we shall not know the extent of the problem. I hope that that lacuna in the minutes of the previous meeting of the Offices Committee will be rectified at the next meeting; if it is not, I shall make sure that the issue is raised.
	It is very unlikely that we shall meet even the first two criteria that I have set out for improving our accommodation without a redistribution of the accommodation within the Palace, as was very forcefully adverted to by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. It is difficult to know precisely what is the division of the Palace of Westminster between this House and the other place. I have armed myself with a floor plan of the House of Lords, covering all floors, which is dated July 1998. I am glad to tell your Lordships that, on the principal floor at any rate, at least part of the Central Lobby is marked down as belonging to the House of Lords. It is my view that, as a starting point, the division of the two Houses should be on a line through the Central Lobby on the axis of St. Stephen's Chapel. That produces some very interesting consequences, which go far beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said about a few offices on the second floor. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the consequences, I should be very happy to lead a guided tour and explain what we might get based on that formula.
	In addition to obtaining a floor plan of the House of Lords, I have asked the Library how the line was drawn between the two Houses following the reconstruction after the fire of the 19th century. I also asked the Library to prepare me a document showing every single alienation of Lords' territory into the care of the House of Commons since that time, together with any supporting documents there may be by way of Statements on the Floor of the House, White Papers and so on. I shall be happy to make those available to your Lordships when I get my hands on them.
	Your Lordships will be interested to know that when it comes to the question of resources and how we acquire the resources we need, there is more than one view. I was told within the past couple of weeks by a very senior person in this establishment--who I will not embarrass by identifying--that, of course, we have to get the approval of Treasury officials. I said that I was afraid that that line disclosed a great rift between us as to the view of the relationship between this House and Treasury officials. I do not know whether the House of Commons got a £¼ billion just by talking to Treasury officials; I should be very surprised if it did. It is my view that we tell Treasury officials what we want; they provide it; and if there is any dispute it is between this House and Treasury Ministers--the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor--and not with Treasury officials.
	I do not think that we need anything like £¼ billion to accommodate ourselves properly and to a standard equivalent to that of the House of Commons, but I am quite clear that we have to do something drastic. When I first arrived in the other place some 30 years ago, I went into a room where there were six colleagues and six desks, with one telephone on top of a filing cabinet at the other end of the room. The Commons has improved its accommodation since then. I left the Commons to come to this place; I became a Minister of State for a time; and I found that I had to share an office with two colleagues--one of whom was not even a member of the Government--whereas, as an opposition Back-Bencher, in the other place I had a comfortable office to myself, with a chair in which I could sleep and room for all kinds of other amenities. I was told that I was very lucky to have an office as a Minister and that it would not be very long before I would have one to myself. Of course, I never did get one. When I ceased to be a Minister I was told how lucky I was that I was going to get a desk. I went back to a room with six desks--this time shared with seven people--with some of the most congenial people one could ever meet in one's life. I was delighted to be among them. We had a telephone on each desk. We had one television set with two remote controls. The trouble was that the remotes had insufficient power to operate the television set from my desk. So whenever my colleagues had left the room and I wanted to change the channel, I had to get up with the remote control and operate it from about half way across the room. So noble Lords can see the deprivation that some of us suffer.
	I know how fortunate I have been compared with other noble Lords. I know I speak only for myself on these recommendations with respect to accommodation, although, from conversations with colleagues, I have a feeling that my views are not entirely unshared. I have told the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that after the Recess I think it will be of value to test the opinion of the House. I propose to come back and table a substantive Motion to test noble Lords' opinion on the Floor of the House on the standard of accommodation they want. That will be very helpful for those who have been negotiating on our behalf. It is high time that we moved beyond talking about these things and did something very firmly, very quickly.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I remind the House that we have two extremely important Second Readings to follow, with 33 speakers. We should try to wind up this debate.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip pre-empted me. I have sat on the Front Bench for the past two and a half hours. Although some useful work has been done, we have not yet started what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, called our main duty as legislators. There are these hugely important and highly controversial Second Readings to follow.
	I am a member of the Offices Committee, so I declare an interest. I attended the first two committees when we looked at the matter. I am a member also of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee and played a part also in that. Most of the report is uncontroversial; it is--as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said--managerial material. I cannot believe that it will not be approved.
	Other questions have been raised, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Gilbert, on accommodation, and by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on medical matters. It was entirely correct for them to be raised, but perhaps the best place to consider those matters is in the sub-committees. If the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in the spill-over tables a substantive Motion to discuss accommodation on the Floor of the House, I shall welcome that and encourage the Government to give him the time, because clearly there is a great deal of concern on the matter.
	There are points that need to be clarified on the issue of the appointment of a consultant. I was part of the committee that looked at that. Having heard the arguments several times over, I am convinced that we should appoint the consultant, Mr Braithwaite. We should get on with that as soon as possible after return from the Recess. If it is the wish of the House--as I think it is--that the steering group should be made up of Back-Benchers, I support that too.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said and indeed the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I am aware, as the Chief Whip said, that we have not yet reached the substantive business for this afternoon. Indeed, the debate has continued longer than the one on the National Health Service Plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, the proposal has been approved by those committees, of which we are both members. We have been taken through the matter on two occasions and we have both been convinced, as were other members of the committee, as noble Lords have said, that that is an entirely meritorious proposal.
	The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and other noble Lords have raised points which are of general interest and which sit comfortably within the framework of the debate raised by my noble friend Lord Peston. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has said, those of us who listened to the presentation of the proposal by those who came from the subsidiary committee to the main committee believed that it was a continuation of the discussion on some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, so usefully raised in his debate, and to which other noble Lords spoke. But this comes back to the basic point, which many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have re-emphasised, as did my noble friend Lord Barnett, that these matters will always ultimately rest with the decision of your Lordships' House. None the less, I am persuaded that the time has come to appoint a consultant to assist the Officers of the House. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who said that it was a novel and perhaps not entirely happy idea, that it was 10 years ago, when the management procedures were first reviewed, that an outside accountant was brought in to help precisely with that review. Those of us who support the appointment of Mr Braithwaite in the present context see it as a continuation.
	So far as concerns the point that Mr Braithwaite may be dominated by House of Commons concerns, I say simply that I am sure that he is very well aware of the many important differences between the Houses. He has a working knowledge of the services which are shared between the Houses, without being dominated by a House of Commons perspective. Therefore, he is uniquely qualified to help us with this particular task. For those reasons--very briefly put because both the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, have explained the position arrived at by the committee very clearly already--I advise your Lordships to accept the Motion and, as the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Gilbert, have said from slightly different positions--get on with the proposal.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I am reluctant to stand up after my noble friend, but too many noble Lords have so far participated in the debate in private. Some Back-Benchers want to say something in public, because this is the only time that we shall have the opportunity to give any expression of view.
	First, I refer to paragraph 8 on accommodation. I do not want to go into detail because it has been extremely well explained, but one begins to get some measure of the irritation being felt by Back-Bench Members. We had a debate in May, much of it about accommodation, in which we expressed our concern about the lack of accommodation. We received a report back from the people who are supposed to address that concern. They told us that they are concerned about the lack of progress. So we have had a reciprocal expression of concern about lack of progress, but no progress. We need better channels of communication between those in the committees who purport to represent us and those who feel that at the present time our views are not being represented.
	We had the opportunity of an extremely good debate in May. That debate seems to have sunk into the sands. Other people are making decisions without the communication process happening.
	Secondly, so far as concerns smoking policy at Millbank House--a point which has not been mentioned thus far--I should like someone to explain to me the precise logic of having a smoking policy in the public areas of Millbank House which is a different policy from the smoking policy of public areas in the Palace. They are both places of work and I should like someone to explain the logic of having different policies in two places of work.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I rise to say that I never agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, but this is one occasion when I do! We have not been given the opportunity to put our views. For that reason I intend to speak briefly. First, I do not like to appoint any consultant on what I call a taxi-meter basis; that is, one pays according to how long he takes. I cannot see why we cannot have a beauty contest, as noble Lords suggested, and ask people to quote a fixed price for the job. That would be a more efficient way of doing it.
	Secondly, I support the point made about the 43 offices. I waited 12 years to get a desk in a room with eight other noble Lords. It is scandalous to have to manage one's work in the House on that basis.
	Finally, I understood that when we put down the red carpet in the Pugin Room it was because we were about to get it back. The red carpet is beginning to look worn and we still have not got it back.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should like to ask a brief question about paragraph 9 of the report entitled "Smoking policy in Millbank House". Is it contemplated that there will be some kind of smoking room for the use of poor, wretched, smoking Peers who are not allowed to smoke in the common areas and whose stablemates in their office object to smoking; or will they be forced out into the street? I do not smoke myself but I did for 40 years of my life. I have great fellow feeling for them.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I do intend to speak. I am becoming extremely angry. Perhaps I may say--I can say it to my noble friend Lord Carter as we are very old friends--that I object very strongly to being told that we must get a move on because there is other business of importance to be discussed. I intend to speak for the length of time I wish to speak.
	When I raised this matter some weeks ago, I said that one of the problems of debating these matters is that we are always told that we must get a move on because there are much more important things that need to be done. I was assured by the Chairman of Committees that there was no such pressure on us and that we could speak and debate these matters as fully as we wished.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must intervene because I think my noble friend may have forgotten that he had an extensive five-hour debate on precisely these subjects in May. That is one of the reasons why those of us who have supported the Motion before the House today feel that that is a way of taking forward those matters, which we agree are important and were so very well discussed.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I shall explain to her in a few moments why I disagree with her about as strongly on that as I do on everything else.
	I feel that I have a moral obligation to speak because I am a devoted Member of your Lordships' House and this is a chance to begin to get your Lordships' House right. However, I believe that I am completely wasting my time and probably that most other noble Lords are wasting their time. If noble Lords ask why that is so, I have two answers. First, my noble friend the Leader of the House, the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and, for all I know, the Convenor have already agreed on this matter. They think that this is a good idea; they are the most distinguished and able Members of our House and this is what they want. I cannot believe that we would stop them. None the less, those of us who disagree have an obligation to go on the record about these matters.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was most kind about the debate that I introduced. But that debate was not on anything of this kind. That debate was about this House improving its role in scrutinising and criticising legislation. The other reason why I am completely wasting my time today, as I now realise I did when I introduced that debate, is that nothing has happened as a result of what I had to say then--absolutely nothing. I now believe that nothing will happen. Perhaps I may add that I do not single out anyone for that. I blame all those who lead the House on all sides for the fact that nothing has happened. But I do believe that I have wasted my time. We have not moved forward and I see no sign of us remotely moving forward on that matter. I do not believe that the debate I introduced in May has anything to do with what we are doing today.
	Everyone has been rather gentle. I do not feel gentle about this at all. Everyone else is well balanced. I am not. I read the document:
	"Furthermore, many Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the House's 'domestic' committee structure and their apparent failure to deliver all the improvements which Members would wish to have".
	I feel obliged to go into an American mode here and say, "You're darn right they are dissatisfied about this". But what most amazes me is the sentence:
	"None of this is intended to suggest that the House is poorly managed at present".
	Perhaps no one else thinks that the House is poorly managed at present. But in a House where for years we have lacked resources, for years lacked accommodation and everything else that is required for us to be a proper legislature, what else can we say but that there has been a failure of management? I do not wish to talk about anyone as an individual person, but who is taking responsibility for this state of affairs?

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is not a failure of management. It is, as he said, a failure of resources. If one does not have the resources, one cannot provide the facilities. I do not blame the management. I think that the place is well run within totally inadequate resources.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord that his concept of management may be different from mine. Who is responsible for getting the resources? I am not; nor is the noble Lord. We have no role in this matter. If I am asked why we do not have the resources, I must say that those who are in positions of authority--those who are part of what we call the management--have not provided them.
	We cannot carry on in this gentle mode of saying, "Really, we want a few changes but we don't want to criticise anyone. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings". It is all nice and cosy, as your Lordships love it to be. But there is something wrong about what has been going on in your Lordships' House. It is not something wrong that has emerged since the Labour Party became the Government. It has been going on all the time I have been here. The reason I am in an angry mood is that what is particularly wrong is the wish for us not to expose these matters and demand that something be done. Having said I think that we are wasting our time--I do believe that--I agree with the notion that the committee should consist entirely of Back-Benchers.
	I have another point. What we are getting, as always, is talk and no action. That is what this debate is about and that is what we have had for years. What we want is action and no talk. What we are not remotely told is how long what is proposed will take. I am entirely sympathetic to the view of my noble friend Lord Barnett that this is an attempt to make sure that it takes a long time. I cannot see it being done in time for some of us to live to see it, but that may be unduly cynical on my part. I should like to have seen in the report that someone would say to the consultant, whoever he is, "We would like the job done by that date. Will you do it?" If the consultant said, "That is not enough time", we could say, "We will find another consultant. He will do it by that date".
	I really do wish to introduce a nasty note into this discussion. I think I have succeeded in doing that. I really do wish to offend the powers that be, because I regard them as the target for criticism. They are responsible. They should have taken the necessary steps. They should not be hiding behind consultants and committees. I do want to criticise people. But what I really want is for the resources to be made available soon and for something to happen.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wish to ask the Chairman of Committees a question. I have been trying to ask it for the past three-quarters of an hour. On page five of the report, the paragraph entitled "Costs" reminds one of Alice in Wonderland. It states:
	"The final cost of the review will depend on the time it takes to complete".
	We are responsible to the taxpayer for the cost of the House. When the Chairman of Committees comes to reply, can he say whether the committee has put a cap on the cost of the review--at any rate, a cap on the cost of Mr Braithwaite? We would be failing in terms of our responsibility to the taxpayer if it has not. That follows on from the question asked by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to spend a couple of minutes supporting my noble friend Lord Peston and other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, except perhaps those who constitute the usual channels. I want to say in my noble friend's support that he is absolutely right that the resources available in this place are deplorable. They are a disgrace. If they were applied in any outside industry, they would be illegal.
	My noble friend has a very good point. But I want to make this point, too. If noble Lords have read Hansard and have read the Written Answers, they will have seen that this House is now sitting for more hours than the House of Commons, it is sitting on more days than the House of Commons and it is doing much of the legislative work of scrutiny that the House of Commons, unfortunately, is not doing. If it is to continue to do that--to sit late at night, at all the hours God sends--then it needs very much better resources.
	I shall also say this. If noble Lords have been reading their Written Answers in Hansard, they will have seen that it costs £45 million a year to run this House, whereas the House of Commons costs £270 million a year. That is six times more than the House of Lords. The amount of money available to us is only one-sixth of that available to the House of Commons, even though we are doing the job--the job that we should be doing, of course--of revising and scrutinising legislation on an ever-increasing and far more important scale.
	For those reasons, I believe that my noble friend Lord Peston was right to be tough. I hope that his tough talking will be taken on board by the Offices Committee and by the usual channels.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House, who represents the interests of all Members of this House, if, during the spillover period, she would be kind enough to put down a Motion for this House to agree that we require back the office accommodation on the second floor currently being used by the House of Commons at the end of the next Session of Parliament. That will give them plenty of time to make alternative arrangements.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I shall speak briefly because I contributed to this debate on the last occasion. I should like to point out that the House should set an example in connection with procurement and contracting procedures.
	If a local authority had appointed a consultant on the basis that the next-door local authority thought that he was a "good egg", that authority would find the Audit Commission and every other agency jumping down its throat. I am not persuaded that one needs a management consultant, but if that is to be agreed, then one of the roles of the corporate officer of the House, as it states in the report, is to ensure that,
	"procurement and contracting procedures are sufficiently robust to avoid the threat of litigation".
	Litigation was pursued in another place. I suspect that that was because the members of that committee decided to "Buy British" and did not comply with the rules on public procurement.
	I can see no reason why, if the House wishes to employ a consultant, it should not comply with the rules covering public procurement by putting work out to competitive tender and considering alternative proposals. The House should set an example and follow the procedures that would be expected of all local authorities and other public agencies.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by agreeing with one of the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon; namely, the point he made on the length of the Sittings of this House. For quite some time I would tell people from outside of the House--especially visiting parliamentarians--that another place was the longest sitting Chamber in the world, while this one was the second longest. The noble Lord is quite right to say that your Lordships' House has now overtaken another place. I agree that that is something to be borne very much in mind when we discuss resources. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, along with other noble Lords.
	I should like to go on to say this. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if, after our detailed debate, I do not attempt to respond to every point that has been made, or to every individual speaker. Indeed, I believe that some of the contributions spoke for themselves. A further point develops from that comment. I am grateful for the contributions made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. They have already dealt with some of the points of detail which would otherwise have fallen to me.
	Before addressing the main point made in the debate, I was asked a specific question by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He asked about paragraph 2 of the report covering the salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. He asked in particular whether there was a special reason for the increase awarded last year. I feel bound to reply to that. Yes, the answer is that there was a special reason. I shall quote a memorandum from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee written in July of last year. I shall quote only a part of it:
	"Following a review by the Senior Salaries Review Body, the Prime Minister announced on 31st March 1999 that the pay of Lords Ministers below Cabinet level and other paid office holders would increase from 1st April 1999. The SSRB recommendation was that the salary of each post should be increased by £8,500 a year, in addition to the 4.31 per cent that other ministerial posts have received. The Chairman of Committees and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees are not covered by the order, but the SSRB recommended, and the Government accepted, that the salaries of these two posts should receive equivalent increases".
	I hope that that provides an answer to the specific question. I hope also that your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I do not think that it would be seemly for me, in the circumstances, to join in a debate about these salaries. Indeed, when the first occasion to discuss the increases arose in the committees of your Lordships' House, I offered to withdraw. However, the members of those committees declined to accept a withdrawal. On every occasion since, I have reminded those committees of my offer to withdraw.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I do not wish to debate this matter, but I should like to know when noble Lords were told of this.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, it was reported last summer to the meeting of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee when the Clerk of the Parliaments presented the memorandum from which I have quoted. That was duly approved and those details (the Clerk of the Parliaments will correct me sotto voce if I am wrong) were made publicly available.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, it might be my own misunderstanding, but the matter is still not clear to me. When did your Lordships' House approve this?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, in July of last year.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I wish only to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett. So far as I am aware, the minutes of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee are not available to the House and not available even to the Offices Committee.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It was in fact in the Offices Committee, whose minutes are available in the Library. The Offices Committee receives reports from this sub-committee as well as from its other sub-committees. That was the position on that matter.
	Perhaps I may turn to the main matters which have been debated this afternoon. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for their kind words about the further consideration which has been given to those matters. However, those thanks are not due to me, they are due to your Lordships' committees, which have given their further consideration.
	As regards the proposal for the appointment of a management consultant, perhaps I may say that, if your Lordships approve this matter, I cannot tell the House this afternoon who would be the members of the steering group. Until this matter is passed by noble Lords, it will not be possible to go into the matter. If one were to approach it the other way round, then I believe that your Lordships would be forgiven for thinking that we were taking noble Lords for granted.
	However, points have been made from all sides of the House as regards the wish expressed by a number of Members for Back-Benchers to be considered to serve as members of the steering committee. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I go only this far this afternoon--it is all the power that I have--and say this. I shall ensure that those quite strong expressions of view are brought to the attention of those who will participate in the consultations which will take place, as is usually the case with appointments to our committees and recommendations to your Lordships' House. There will be no way after the matter has been raised this afternoon that that point will be ignored.
	On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and touched on by other noble Lords that it should be for a committee of the House to decide and give its recommendations on the question of a management consultant, that has in fact been done. Committees of this House considered these matters and decided to recommend that proposal to the House. So that hurdle has already been overcome, which is why this recommendation has been put forward to your Lordships.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in mid flow. Will he also consider the question of whether it is sensible to divide the responsibility for supervision between unspecified other committees of the House and the Steering Committee which is now to be appointed? Would it not be more sensible for the role to be undertaken as a whole by the Steering Committee and for the Steering Committee to consider whether a management consultant should be appointed and, if so, who should be appointed?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I understand the noble Viscount's point. But that kind of consideration was gone into thoroughly in the course of lengthy deliberations in the committees, both before the previous recommendation was put forward to your Lordships on 21st June and again in the reconsideration of this matter. It was clear that the Offices Committee wished to put this recommendation before your Lordships. So while I understand the noble Viscount's point, those considerations have already been taken into account, which is why the proposal is before the House.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees tell the House how many candidates were considered? Also, will he assure us that Mr Braithwaite has not already been appointed?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, certainly he has not been appointed. He cannot be appointed until your Lordships have, if your Lordships do, approve this Motion.
	A number of points have been raised on the matter of procurement, tendering and so on. If noble Lords will forgive me, I shall wrap up all the contributions in one in my reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
	It was decided that the tendering process was not necessary. There must be a tendering process if the expected amount is approximately over £100,000; that must, for one thing, be in accordance with European Union rules. Alternatives to Mr Michael Braithwaite were considered. I can go so far as to say that a distinguished and very experienced Member of this House who is very knowledgeable in these matters was consulted, and two other possibilities were considered. However, the outcome, which was overwhelmingly accepted by the Offices Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, was that because of Mr Michael Braithwaite's extensive experience and qualifications, and in particular because of the two inquiries that he had carried out on behalf of another place, he had in the first place a considerable head start over any other possible candidates and it would be a comparatively short period of time before he could, to use a colloquialism, "get up to speed" so far as this House is concerned. The committee was convinced that that was a substantial reason for pacing him as the strong contender.
	The other point--

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Chairman of Committees, but I thought that the figure of £100,000 related to a requirement to advertise tenders in the European journal. Surely, for orders or procurement under that value, if a local authority gave a consultancy contract to someone for £50,000 or £70,000, could it do it simply on the say-so of someone else? Would it not need to obtain competing proposals?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I understand that the way in which the Offices Committee approached the matter is perfectly acceptable. I do not think that I can take that matter further now.
	I was in the process of explaining a point on the question of cost. If Mr Michael Braithwaite is appointed, because of the other work that he has done and because of the length of time that he would need to spend on an inquiry into this House, his fee would be substantially lower than it otherwise would have been. I have been left in no doubt that the fee is less than it has been in another place, and substantially less than the £100,000 that I quoted.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords--

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, perhaps I may just finish this point because it is relevant to the sentence that I last delivered. Another quotation that we received was between £120,000 and £150,000, plus expenses. In terms of qualifications, that was one of the contenders who was also considered suitable.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Perhaps I may quote from the minutes of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee, which are not available to the House. I proposed that,
	"the terms and conditions of engagement of any consultant should be made known".
	I believe that that is right, and the House should know those terms and conditions.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I quite understand the point that the noble Lord makes. It is not advisable for me to deal in a public way with any negotiations that may have to take place. The costs will, of course, be made known in due course if your Lordships go ahead with this proposal. But it would not be right for actual amounts to be settled in a public way like this. I suggest that it is much better for the matter to be settled in a less public way. Indeed, we do not know the number of days that will be needed if Mr Michael Braithwaite is appointed. Indeed, it is for the Clerk of the Parliaments, as our accounting officer, to settle the daily terms. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go further than that this afternoon.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Mr Braithwaite comes to us with great experience of these matters. Is he not able to say how many days this will take him?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, that depends on a number of factors--not least, if he is appointed, on the number of interviews with noble Lords and members of staff whom he finds it necessary to consult. If noble Lords will forgive me, it is simply not possible to put a figure on these matters this afternoon. If the House decides to go ahead with this proposal, it must be left for later negotiation and to see how long the inquiry will take.
	Another matter raised by a number of noble Lords is the speed of the inquiry and the possible need for an interim report. I give noble Lords an assurance that, if the Motion is passed, this matter will be pursued with all due speed. I should not be happy about a great deal of time being spent on it. We need to get on with further action. A great deal has already been done, and insufficient credit has been paid to your Lordships' staff, the Parliamentary Works Department, and others who have dealt with the matter. However, I shall not be satisfied if we spend too long on these matters. While I cannot say until the inquiry gets under way, if it takes place, whether it will be absolutely necessary, there is no reason why an interim report should not be made to your Lordships to show how things are going.
	Two noble Lords referred to the medical service. I can confirm that a nurse and occupational health physician are available to Members and staff of both Houses. That is kept under a great deal of scrutiny by the Offices Committee. The Offices Committee was criticised for being something of a rubber stamp. Those noble Lords who raise that kind of point are not alone in believing that, as at present constituted, the Offices Committee is perhaps not the right vehicle to carry forward these matters. I agree that that is something that we must look at, not in the present context although it arises out of it.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the point I raised in the Offices Committee about the need for a survey of the needs of all Members of the House, including secretaries and researchers, will be considered as soon as possible?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall bring back that proposal to the Offices Committee. I do not believe that it is for me to commit your Lordships' committees to something until they have had an opportunity to consider it. I am sure that the point made strongly by my noble friend, not only this afternoon but elsewhere, will not be overlooked.
	I deal with one other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. Some kind of smoking room is proposed for Millbank House and 7 Little College Street which would be usable by both staff and Members. The reason why Millbank House, which encompasses 7 Little College Street, has been considered separately in this way is because that is new accommodation which is becoming available. It was thought appropriate to deal with it straight away as one proposal. The other matters relating to the Palace of Westminster are to be returned to later. That was the reason why it was thought to be a good opportunity to deal with the matter in one go.
	I am conscious that noble Lords who have raised other points that I have not dealt with this afternoon will be disappointed. I hope that I shall be forgiven if, following this quite lengthy debate, I leave the matter there. Together with other noble Lords who have made this recommendation, I very much hope that, in the light of the significant changes which have been made since 21st June, your Lordships will pass the Motion this afternoon.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I apologise for taking up a little more time before the Question on the Motion is put. It was not I or any other Member of your Lordships' House but the usual channels who decided that the matter should be debated today before the two major Bills. We could have had this debate a few days ago. The report from the Offices Committee was published on 19th July. The last time that we had this degree of confusion, if I may put it as mildly as that without being provocative--as my noble friend Lord Peston always is--the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I simply asked whether the appointment of this consultant could be made by the steering group. I believe that there was general agreement that that should be so. Incidentally, contrary to what has been suggested, that steering group should not be composed of some, but all, Back-Benchers. That was what I asked for, and that is what I hope will happen.
	The last time this matter was debated and there was a degree of confusion, at my suggestion the Chairman of Committees withdrew the report. We are now told that if we approve the report we shall approve the appointment of Mr Braithwaite as consultant. That is not confusing but quite simple. Mr Braithwaite may be a lovely man--like me--but that is not the issue. We are being asked to appoint him now on a simple resolution. I hope, therefore, that the Chairman of Committees will listen to the Clerk of the Parliaments; better still, perhaps the Clerk of the Parliaments can speak to us.
	It is clear that the mood of the House is that, once again, noble Lords today are not willing to support the appointment of Mr Braithwaite. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees will consult the usual channels. We can adjourn during pleasure, which is the normal procedure, and deal with the two major Bills tomorrow morning.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I see no reason why the proposal for the proposed management consultant should not be put before the steering group when it is set up, if your Lordships pass this Motion this afternoon. For obvious reasons, the steering group cannot be set up until the spill-over. There would, therefore, be delay. But if it is the view of noble Lords that that delay is worth while so that the steering group can consider the matter, I take it upon myself to give that assurance.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps as a simple Back-Bencher I may ask the Chairman of Committees for a degree of elucidation on this matter. Does the noble Lord propose that we should pass the Motion before us to approve the existing report, which includes provision for the appointment of the consultant but that that consultant should not be appointed, or that we should reword the resolution in order to accept every part of the report except for the appointment of the consultant which should be left to the steering group? If it is the latter, I am with the noble Lord; if it is the former, I am not.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, it is the latter.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees saying specifically that if we pass this resolution we shall not be appointing Mr Braithwaite?

Lord Gilbert: Or anyone else, my Lords?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, as I hoped I had made clear when I responded to the point earlier, if the Motion is passed this afternoon, it will be put to the steering group and it will be for the steering group to make the appointment.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, would the steering group have the right to say "No" to Mr Braithwaite or anybody else, or would it be stuck with Mr Braithwaite?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, of course it would if the matter was referred to it in the way that I suggested. But if your Lordships pass the Motion this afternoon, it will be for the steering group to settle the matter. I do not suggest that the matter should again come back to the House before we can proceed. The matter should be left to the steering group; otherwise, we shall never get on with the serious work which really needs to be done.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have succeeded only in becoming more confused. We have a report which, it is proposed by the noble Lord, should be accepted in its entirety with the verbal reservation that that report does not apply in its entirety. Is it open to this House to pass a Motion which does not represent what we intend?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, it is not without precedent. Assurances have been given. They are given on a variety of matters when your Lordships are considering proposals. I should have thought that such an assurance from this Dispatch Box would have meant something and would have been acceptable to your Lordships. Surely we can proceed in the way I have suggested and leave it for the steering group to deal with this point.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he quite sure about this? If the House passes a Motion which appoints Mr Braithwaite and subsequently a sub-committee of a committee of the House decides not to appoint him, is it not likely that Mr Braithwaite would have a good case to sue for breach of contract? It is proposed today that we make a contract to appoint Mr Braithwaite. Surely we are not saying that a sub-committee of a committee of the House can then reverse that decision.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, there is no contract involved.

Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may introduce a note of conciliation. I understood the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to say precisely that there would be a steering committee. He heard our views on its composition. He has given us--it is acceptable to me--his personal assurance that that steering group would have the final say. He has said that twice and placed it before this House. He says that that is what passing the resolution means. If he says that as Chairman of Committees--he has so declared and no one has said that he cannot do so--I can live with it. I have heard what he said and he is an honourable man. The Chairman of Committees has stated that the steering committee will decide. If that is what he says, that is good enough for me.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston--

Lord Ackner: My Lords--

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I was in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to complete the point.
	In order to place the matter beyond peradventure--some noble Lords have qualms despite the helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston--I propose that if your Lordships agree to pass the Motion today the report will be minuted to exclude the words in the final sub-paragraph of paragraph 5,
	"and that Mr Braithwaite should be appointed to lead the review".

Lord Geddes: My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content"--

Noble Lords: Order! Ackner!

Lord Carter: My Lords, a Motion has been put before the House that the report of the Offices Committee shall be accepted with the deletion of the words that refer to the appointment of Mr Braithwaite. There has also been a clear assurance from the Chairman of Committees that the steering group will be responsible for the appointment of the consultant. There is no contract with Mr Braithwaite. This will delay the work that needs to be done. There is a clear Motion before the House which removes from the report the appointment of Mr Braithwaite.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, we are seeking to perform totally unnecessary gymnastics which convince no one who is prepared to consider the terms of the report that we are doing anything except passing the report.
	I respectfully submit that all that is necessary is to bring back the matter tomorrow with paragraph 5 redrawn. Then we shall see precisely what we are voting for and the gymnastics that are going on will be entirely unnecessary. I suggest that it is a thoroughly bad precedent to pass a clear resolution with secret or collateral provisos.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I understand the noble and learned Lord's point. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to trouble your Lordships by bringing back the matter tomorrow. If the Motion for the approval of the report is put to the House with the deletion of the words I have quoted, and for complete clarity I again quote the words to be deleted,
	"and that Mr Braithwaite should be appointed to lead the review",
	that will meet what I believe to be the requirements of your Lordships. Accordingly, I commend the Motion with the deletion of those words.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords--

Lord Geddes: My Lords, with the deletion of the words as stated by the Chairman of Committees, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
	Division called.
	I have to advise the House that Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 53. Therefore a Division cannot take place, and I declare the "Contents" have it.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill comes from the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, which has its basis in the Good Friday agreement. The Government have committed themselves to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement--

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are beginning the debate of an extremely important Bill. I would ask noble Lords who wish to converse with each other to leave the Chamber.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Bill comes from the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, which has its basis in the Good Friday agreement. The Government have committed themselves to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. One of these, and an extremely important one, is a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland.
	In this context, it would be helpful to remind the House of what the agreement says on this issue. It is important because the agreement gives the Government and should give all democrats in Northern Ireland, a message of what is expected of us.
	The agreement states:
	"We should recognise the sacrifices that have been made, including by the RUC, GC. This Government does recognise all the sacrifices, but in particular when considering a Bill dealing with policing I would like to pay tribute to the work and courage of the RUC in defending democracy, to the 302 men and women who lost their lives and the many thousands injured".
	The Government recognise the trauma and suffering caused to individual officers and their families as well as police widows. The Patten report drew further attention to that and the Government accept the case for a substantial fund to help police widows, injured officers, injured retired officers and their families. That matter has been raised in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, who has asked oral Questions about the matter and who has bombarded me with Written Questions because of his particular concern in relation to the issue. It is time for progress to be made.
	Yesterday, the Secretary of State appointed the former senior civil servant, the director of security and policing in the Northern Ireland Office, John Steele, OBE, to conduct a review into Patten's recommendation for a substantial fund to be set up to help injured police officers, injured retired officers and their families as well as police widows. He was appointed yesterday, 26th July, with the aim of presenting a report to the Government by the end of October. This should make recommendations on the purpose and administration of such a fund. This is a means of making progress on an issue which the noble Lord has pressed for a considerable time.
	The Good Friday agreement also recognises that policing is a highly emotive subject. No one who knows anything about Northern Ireland could deny that. But there is an opportunity for a new beginning to policing. An opportunity which I know the police want to embrace. They are ready and willing to change and have already begun the process of doing so. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in recognising their positive approach.
	In the context of the agreement, what does a new beginning mean? It means an opportunity to create a police service which is representative and, to quote from the agreement,
	"capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole".
	Perhaps I may dwell on two parts of that for a moment or two. The first is a call for a new beginning. We all have an opportunity to contribute to that and I know we will act accordingly. Indeed, the people of Northern Ireland have overwhelmingly told us to do so.
	The second point is on the support of the community as a whole. There is no doubt that in looking at the recommendations in the Patten report the Government have faced very real challenges when measuring the proposals against this test. The debate on the name and symbols of the police service exemplifies this. But the Government believe that they have sought to deal with this issue in a sensitive manner; in a way that recognises the linkage between the RUC and the new police service that we want to see and in a way which should command the support of all.
	Furthermore, we should not lose sight of the fact, as the Chief Constable has said, that,
	"the vast bulk of the recommendations in the Patten report are about good and effective policing".
	The police want to move forward. They want to become more representative of the community they serve. They want to be able to modernise and normalise their approach to policing.
	I note in this context the very helpful comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, when he said in this place in response to the Government's Statement on the Patten report, that while he had a
	"few criticisms of a huge report ... it is worth saying that much of the report was lifted from the Chief Constable's own review",
	and that his party,
	"share the Government's objective of changing the policing environment".--[Official Report, 19/1/00; col. 1168.]
	On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said,
	"we recognise the need for fundamental change of the kind that Patten proposes".--[Official Report, 19/1/00; col. 1169.]
	I look forward to hearing and responding to the views of noble Lords, but would ask them to consider what the Government are hoping to achieve and what they are looking for in the new policing service for the people of Northern Ireland. The key elements are, first, a police service which is effective and efficient. It should be one capable of dealing with the public order situation and with terrorism, which we are sadly still facing, as well as dealing with what are known as "normal policing functions". I want to emphasise that the Government recognise the significance of the security environment. They have made clear, as indeed did Patten, that certain recommendations--for example, on phasing out the reserve--are security dependent. I can assure noble Lords that they will not gamble with the lives of people or officers.
	The second element is a police service which is accountable to the community it serves and responsive to its needs. The Bill has considerable focus on this. The third is a police service which is representative of the community. As the Chief Constable said in April, the RUC is,
	"greatly under-representative and anything which can put right that under-representation is to be welcomed".
	Fourthly, we also want a service which is focused on a human rights based approach. The Human Rights Act, which applies to the police, comes into force in October. Fifthly, we want a service to be delivered in constructive and inclusive partnerships.
	All of those issues are found in the Good Friday agreement. The Bill before your Lordships lays the foundations for this approach.
	When the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill was introduced in another place on 16th May, the Government acknowledged that it would need some changes, some adjustment. They said that they would readily accept changes if they added to the aims of the Bill and the Good Friday agreement but not otherwise.
	My right honourable friend in another place repeated the point at Third Reading on 11th July. He said that the Government remained,
	"open to argument, to further debate and change, which no doubt will take place ... That is because I recognise the historic importance of this opportunity and of this legislation".--[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/00; col. 819.]
	I can tell noble Lords, therefore, that while the Government believe that the Bill meets the key elements or objectives that I have set out--it will modernise and enhance policing in the interests of all in Northern Ireland--we remain open to persuasion and prepared to consider constructive changes.
	Perhaps I may touch briefly on the detailed provisions in the Bill. Part I, which I hope will not obscure our vision of the Bill as a whole, deals with the name. The Government thought long and hard on the name and have established a link between the RUC and the new police service.
	As my right honourable friend said in the other place at Third Reading on 11th July,
	"The body of constables known as the RUC will form part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it will be incorporated in the new police service. At the same time we have introduced a new name--the Police Service of Northern Ireland ... [This] will be used for all operational and working purposes, wherever and in whatever circumstances when the police interface with the public".--[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/00; col. 818.]
	The Bill has very many other important measures. Part II creates the Northern Ireland policing board in place of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and sets out its general functions. Schedule 1 sets out the arrangements for appointments to the board. Part III provides for district policing partnerships and other local consultative arrangements, with Schedule 3 governing appointments to district policing partnerships.
	Part IV provides for the police planning process. Part V introduces measures to require the policing board and the Chief Constable to secure continuous improvement in the efficient and effective exercise of their functions. Part VI sets out the general duty of members of the police and the duties of the Chief Constable. It deals with recruitment and severance arrangements. It also covers the new declaration, the registration of interests of police officers, the code of ethics, a regulation-making power on police flags and emblems and arrangements for co-operation with the Garda Siochana.
	Part VII sets out the policing board's power to request reports from the chief constable on any aspect of policing and to cause inquiries to be held. Safeguards are set out in the part, although the Government propose to make further changes to those in Committee. Part IX provides for the appointment of a commissioner to oversee the implementation of changes in policing in Northern Ireland and enables the Secretary of State to establish a Royal Ulster Constabulary GC foundation to mark the services and sacrifices of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
	The Government are committed and determined to create a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland and one in which we all have a stake. They want to see reciprocation from others through support of the new arrangements. As my right honourable friend said in another place on 6th June, the Bill sets out,
	"a radical vision of modern civic policing that is rooted in the whole community--and will draw its legitimacy and strength from its support in all parts of the community".--[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col. 177.]
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.-- (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the measures in this important Bill. For the past 30 years the RUC has stood as the thin green line between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy and, in doing so, has borne the brunt of the most wicked and vile acts of cowardly terrorism. Without the RUC, the opportunities for a lasting peace created by the Belfast agreement would, quite simply, not exist. It is largely thanks to the RUC, supported by the Armed Forces, that we can be confident that the future of Northern Ireland will be determined only by democracy and never by violence.
	The RUC has responded to that violence with the highest standards of discipline and professionalism, and I utterly reject the claims of those who describe it as a sectarian force. In our view, the RUC has more than demonstrated its even-handedness and impartiality. Most recently, it stood literally in the middle between loyalists and nationalists at Drumcree. All of us should be profoundly grateful for the way in which the RUC has policed the situation at Drumcree in the past few weeks, often in the face of the most appalling provocation.
	The contribution of the RUC has been apparent not only in Northern Ireland itself; it has stood as the first line of defence against terrorism here in mainland Great Britain and in the Republic, where it has thwarted many potential loyalist atrocities.
	The sacrifice of the RUC is without equal. That is why the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty in a deeply moving ceremony at Hillsborough in April was so richly deserved. No one is more deserving of our praise and no one stands to gain more from the establishment of a lasting peace. It has been a real force for stability in Northern Ireland. The RUC is a police force that after 30 years can truly walk with its head held high.
	This Bill, of course, gives effect to the recommendations contained in the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. One of the most serious deficiencies of the report is its failure to give all but the most cursory recognition of the achievements and sacrifice of the RUC. Overall, the bulk of the Patten proposals formed a useful basis for what policing in Northern Ireland could be like when the main terrorist threat is finally over. However, there are other areas, such as the scrapping of the RUC's royal title, to which we are implacably opposed, and those such as the security-sensitive recommendations that should be considered only when there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
	Much of the Patten report was foreshadowed in the Chief Constable's fundamental review of policing, initiated following the first IRA cessation in 1994. That review was predicated on three scenarios: first, a continuing high level of terrorist activity; secondly, an end to bombings and killings, but with the terrorist organisations remaining fully armed and engaging in shootings, beatings, mutilations and racketeering; and, thirdly, an end to terrorism, with the terrorist organisations dismantling and decommissioning their weapons. Only in that scenario was it envisaged that there should be a fundamental change to policing and, importantly, significant reductions in the size of the RUC.
	Regrettably, we are still a long way from scenario three. Despite the re-establishment of the Executive and the Assembly, coupled with the offer of the IRA to put its weapons "completely and verifiably beyond use" and to engage in a confidence-building measure, there has been no decommissioning and the main terrorist threat remains. Even in the event of a permanent end to violence by the main terrorist organisations, the threat from the dissidents--especially on the republican side--will remain potent. We know that they are currently recruiting members; that they have access to more sophisticated weaponry; and that it is only through the skill of the police and the Army that recent attacks have not resulted in more serious damage and loss of life.
	While any of those groups remain active and retain their capability, it would be absolute madness to introduce any of the controversial security-sensitive measures recommended by Patten. That is why we do not believe that the time is right to make cuts in the strength and capability of the police, or at this stage to begin phasing out the full-time reserve; nor do we believe that it is right to tamper with Special Branch in a way that could undermine its intelligence efforts and effectiveness.
	Above all, no changes must be made for political reasons; changes must be made only with the full support of the Chief Constable. Nothing must be done that in any way undermines the ability of the RUC to uphold the rule of law and to protect the people of Northern Ireland. We believe emphatically that the continued operational independence of the Chief Constable is vital. Operational independence remains the single most important feature of policing in the United Kingdom. The Chief Constable must be allowed to run the police service without interference from any politician or group of politicians. That goes, too, for the new policing board that the Bill sets up to replace the existing Police Authority.
	The new policing board will consist of a majority of politicians from parties represented in the Executive. As we said in our submission to Patten:
	"We do not in principle set ourselves against the greater representation of locally elected politicians on the Police Authority, though with safeguards".
	However, we have grave anxieties about the scope for political interference by the board that could result from Patten's recommendations, especially when we consider that they will include parties which even now cannot bring themselves to support the police. The problems will be even more acute on the district policing partnerships (DPPs), especially in areas where one political party or tradition might be dominant. Rather than satisfying Patten's aim of taking the politics out of policing, they could have had exactly the opposite effect and politicised the police to a greater extent than at any time since before 1970.
	We remain totally opposed to the inclusion on the policing board of members of political parties who remain inextricably linked with terrorist organisations that have not even begun to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. We find it completely unacceptable that the Bill will not provide explicitly for the disqualification from the board of political or independent members who have been convicted of terrorist offences.
	Similarly, we are concerned about the district policing partnerships to be established by the Bill, which mirror the reorganisation of the police into districts based on the existing local government boundaries. We welcome the fact that they will have only a consultative role, but we remain concerned that they will still seek to interfere in the operational decisions of a district commander. We oppose the Secretary of State's decision to leave open the option of increasing their powers, including the possibility of giving them the ability to raise money to buy in additional policing services.
	We believe that it is wrong for any party--loyalist or republican--to be represented on the DPPs if their paramilitary associates have not decommissioned a single gun or an ounce of Semtex. The provision to disqualify any person from sitting as an independent member if they have been convicted of a scheduled offence should also apply explicitly to any political members with previous terrorist convictions.
	Patten's proposals to rid the RUC of its proud name and cap badge are, of course, the most controversial aspects of the report. They have caused significant hurt and anger, and are wholly without justification. We profoundly disagree with the assertion that the police service should be free of any association with the symbols of the state, particularly as acceptance of the Belfast agreement means acceptance of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's constitutional status.
	On the cap badge, I can only repeat what has been said many times before: it would be difficult to come up with anything that better encompasses the British and Irish traditions than the current one.
	In Committee, the Secretary of State accepted a Unionist amendment that incorporates the name of the RUC in the so-called title deeds of the new police service. That amendment went on to say that for operational purposes the name used would be the "Police Service of Northern Ireland". That goes some way to addressing our concerns about the royal title being lost, although we should have preferred it to have gone further and established a dual title--the "Police Service of Northern Ireland-Royal Ulster Constabulary".
	On Report in the other place, the Secretary of State proposed a further amendment that defined operational purposes in such a way as to make it impossible ever to use the name RUC again. That amendment was not moved. If the Government seek to bring it back in Committee here, we shall implacably oppose it.
	We all agree that there has to be change in the RUC. The RUC, under Sir Ronnie Flanagan's fine leadership, recognises that. It is wrong that the force is so overwhelmingly Protestant. The RUC has for many years sought to recruit more Catholics. But let us be clear; the biggest single disincentive to Catholic recruitment remains intimidation and the threat of murder. Anybody who doubts that should recall how the number of Catholic applicants to the RUC doubled after the first IRA ceasefire in 1994, only to fall back again when the ceasefire broke down.
	The situation has not been helped by the refusal of nationalist politicians and members of the Catholic clergy to recommend that young Catholic men and women join the police force. I very much hope that will change. There can be no justification for it.
	We all share the objective of seeing the composition of the police more accurately reflect the make-up of the community in Northern Ireland. We all want the RUC to be routinely unarmed, with no need for flak jackets and armoured vehicles, and able to patrol all parts of Northern Ireland without the need for the support of the Army.
	The biggest single contribution to that, and to transforming the policing environment in Northern Ireland, would be for the paramilitaries--republican and so-called loyalist--to end terrorism for good, dismantle their organisations, and begin to decommission their illegal weapons. When that happens, it should fall to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with its proud name and symbols preserved, to rise to the challenge of policing the peace just as valiantly as it has policed Northern Ireland throughout the darkest days of terror. The RUC deserves our support. The Bill, without amendment, does not.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I associate myself with the Minister's remarks about the casualties sustained by the police service over the past three decades. The RUC has made an enormous sacrifice by any standards.
	This is a significant Bill that will have a profound influence on future developments in Northern Ireland, so it is important that we get it as right as we can. The Liberal Democrats strongly support the broad thrust of the Bill. It is in accordance with the Belfast agreement and implements most of the Patten report.
	The Bill is a compromise between the concerns of the nationalist and Unionist communities. As such, it will attract criticism from the more extreme elements on both sides. Compromises are a hallmark of democratic politics. That is why, as devolved government gets under way in Northern Ireland, the arrangements in the Bill will gather increasing support from the majority of its citizens. The key to that lies in the provisions for community co-operation and involvement and in the checks and balances, including the ombudsman and the commissioner.
	While we welcome the Bill and broadly support it, the Liberal Democrats still have some concerns. If they could be satisfactorily addressed, the Bill could be further improved. We shall move amendments on those issues in Committee, when I shall be greatly assisted by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, who has considerable experience of police matters.
	The major worry that I shall concentrate on is the issue of recruitment quotas, as detailed in Clause 45. The provisions now in the Bill are worse than when it was first introduced in another place. Originally, the quota provisions had to be renewed every three years, together with a sunset condition under which quotas would cease to operate after 10 years. That sunset clause has now been removed. That means that unless the triennial orders renewing the provisions are defeated in Parliament, quotas can be employed indefinitely. That would be a matter for despair.
	I should explain why the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose quotas per se. We fully understand the Government's motives, which are highly commendable. They want to achieve an equal balance in the police between the two communities. Well before the Patten report, the Opsahl commission observed in 1993 that,
	"As with political structures, the key question about policing is how to ensure its acceptance by the nationalist community".
	The use of quotas is one of the confidence-building measures aimed at ensuring that acceptance. However, we do not believe that they are the best way to go about it. Indeed, they could well be counter-productive. While I fully understand the symbolic significance of a 50:50 quota, I query its practicality. What would be the consequences at the triennial review if recruitment fell below the designated 50 per cent Roman Catholic enrolment? We may well be storing up trouble for the future, which could be avoided if targets were substituted for quotas.
	The Home Secretary has laid down targets for the recruitment of ethnic minorities for constabularies throughout England and Wales. He specifically ruled out quotas in a speech on 14th April 1999 to the national conference for recruitment, retention and progression of black and Asian officers. He said:
	"But let me be clear about what I am not doing. I am not setting quotas and saying that you have to take somebody on because of the colour of their skin. I am setting targets to enable the police service to more fairly represent the community you serve".
	The advantage of targets over quotas is that they allow for greater flexibility in monitoring the new recruitment process. High targets can be set--even 50 per cent--but any shortfall in reaching a set target is much less damaging than a failure to achieve a rigid quota. I fully appreciate why the Secretary of State adheres so strongly to the quota option at this point in the legislative process, but the crunch will come at the first triennial review when, if the recruitment quota has not been fulfilled, it will be a major problem for whoever is the Secretary of State at that time. Although we all hope that an equal balance in recruitment will have been achieved, we shall need to anticipate the situation if it has not. Targets will help us to aim for success. Quotas are more likely, albeit inadvertently, to prove a recipe for failure.
	We also have other concerns. In view of the time and the many speakers to follow, I shall refer only briefly to them. They will be taken up by my noble friend. We have a number of concerns regarding the relationship between the board, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. The Patten report expressed the hope that the new police board would be considerably stronger than the police authority that it replaced. However, the Police Bill assigns many powers to the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable rather than to the board. We do not, however, question the need for a role for the Secretary of State in policing. What we are concerned about is that the relationship between the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the board is out of balance in favour of the Secretary of State.
	With the exception of these reservations, which we will address further at the Committee stage, we strongly support this Bill. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill aims to preserve the best of the old, while addressing the imperatives of the new.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, few people can produce any real justification for the Patten report and this Bill. It is rather as though in 1940 Churchill had decided to set up a commission to recommend drastic changes in the composition and structures of Royal Air Force Fighter Command and investigate the political and religious views of the pilots who won the battle. I wonder whether we can assume that Churchill would then have appointed Oswald Mosley to that board to ensure a fair balance and arranged for the Luftwaffe itself to be represented, perhaps even by Herman Goering, if he could have spared the time, so that allegations of undue force used by the spitfire and hurricane pilots could have been thoroughly investigated. Had there been a Northern Ireland Office in those days, of course, it would have been only too happy to organise the release and repatriation of the German pilots. After all, the Northern Ireland Office has doubly excelled itself today by releasing the Docklands bomber and making concessions and promises in other ways as well.
	Some contributors give the impression that they are thinking of a body akin to traffic wardens. Regrettably, we in the United Kingdom cannot afford that kind of luxury. When the Patten report was being shaped well over a year ago, there was a belief that because 70 per cent of the electorate voted for peace, there would be peace. There was an innocent belief in the assurances of Her Majesty's Government, and particularly those of the Prime Minister, in the campaign to secure a "yes" vote in the referendum. There was an expectation that the published Patten report would ensure that nationalist and republican leaders would encourage Roman Catholic recruits to enlist in the police force and thus achieve a sectarian balance.
	I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about the hideous danger of quotas as opposed to targets. Unfortunately, that all-important aim was recently dashed by both elements following the passage of this Bill through another place. They have made it quite clear that they will not encourage Catholic recruits to join even the restructured force. Those four Patten assumptions have simply disappeared and are no more valid than the excessive spin doctoring that has damaged faith in democratic government in the minds of the United Kingdom electorate in general.
	I realise that most Bills evolve over a period of consultation and discussion and that inevitably the situation could be transformed by the time any given Bill receives Royal Assent. However, in the case of the Patten conclusions not only has the landscape already changed but the very foundations have simply disappeared. One of the causes was the blatant and naked pressure applied by America to secure acceptance, of a sort, of the Good Friday agreement. People have now had their eyes opened.
	I frequently expressed grave reservations many years ago about the intolerable pressure used when Israeli and Palestinian representatives were shipped across the Atlantic, were given the pressure cooker treatment and starved of sleep until, in desperation, they accepted what was termed an "agreement", which endured until they returned home to face their respective hostile people. Now President Clinton has this very week washed his hands of a situation made worse by his dazzling high wire acts.
	On this side of the Atlantic, the British and Irish Governments imported the very same devices and methods and, with highly questionable means, achieved an illusion of success. But when the conjuring tricks were revealed, great was the disillusionment on the part of tens of thousands of people who now bitterly resent being deceived. They have resolved never to be conned a second time, which creates a very difficult situation for anyone engaged in future experiments. A few weeks ago the Irish Foreign Minister mocked the victims of deception by revealing that the entire process is designed to eliminate all traces of Britishness from Northern Ireland. That was an eye opener to all who had placed their trust in princes and politicians.
	Therefore, like the innocents who were told that they were voting for peace, your Lordships will rightly resent having been invited to join in that conspiracy, directed against what I have always termed "the greater number of all faiths and none", who have one simple desire--to remain within the same kingdom. We can be certain that in the next two months until your Lordships return to the consideration of this Bill, the terrorists will have been granted still further concessions, because it is an unstoppable flow, and many more traces of Britishness will have been removed before we return in October. In like measure, resentment in the minds of that betrayed "greater number" will have increased.
	In October that greater number, Protestants, Roman Catholics, other faiths and none, will be listening to your Lordships focus on those clauses in the Bill that are designed to eliminate Britishness and certainly not intended to improve the quality of policing in a part of the United Kingdom. It will therefore be the task of your Lordships to disregard all the threats of all shades of terrorists and their allies in drug dealing and protection rackets. Our duty will be to make a splendid police force even better.
	There are those who would seek to mutilate and dismember the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has protected the greater number of citizens to which I have already referred. Your Lordships' role will be the opposite. As has been said, we shall need to look at crucial points such as the title of the force, the command structure, political oversight, retention of the necessary equipment and financial accounting and budgeting.
	I am sorry that because a commotion was caused by those doing their best to obstruct our proceedings this evening, the noble and learned Lord had difficulty in making himself heard. But if I heard him aright, he suggested that the Bill had a certain parentage because it was a recommendation of the Belfast agreement. I do not think that I am misquoting him. That was the gist of what he said. But he will realise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, that we are not there yet. Page 23 of the Belfast agreement said about the setting up of the Patten commission that it should include,
	"proposals on any necessary arrangements for the transition to policing in a normal peaceful society".
	That was what it was commissioned to do. It was not to disarm the police; to change the name of the police force; to mutilate its whole structures and make them impotent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, we are not there yet and that is the problem. So the Bill gets the wording wrong because it starts the wrong way round. We are not in a normal peaceful society as yet. We all hope that we shall be. At that time, many of us would be prepared to support some other features which are currently objectionable. But I repeat that we may have a long way to go before it is possible to implement those provisions. Fortunately, our two months of Recess provide your Lordships and the Government with ample opportunity to examine the Bill; to remove the numerous flaws which there are because of the timetabling which the Bill suffered in the other place; and to introduce constructive amendments, it is hoped in co-operation with the Government--and we all look forward to that. Most importantly, we must do nothing to weaken the capacity of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to play its part in protecting the nation from the various active terrorist units prepared to strike at will. The Provisional IRA remains in possession of its arsenal, which arsenal is constantly updated and reinforced. Parliament and your Lordships' House have an overriding responsibility to secure that counter-terrorist capacity of the police is in no way impaired.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I regret that due to the lateness of the proceedings, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, could not take part in this debate. I should have liked to hear his remarks.
	First, I quote to your Lordships what the Good Friday agreement said about policing. It stated:
	"The participants [in the negotiations] believe it essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and cooperative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms".
	The same paragraph goes on to say that any structures and arrangements should be,
	"capable of delivering a policing service, in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels, and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility consistent with the foregoing principles. These arrangements should be based on principles of protection of human rights and professional integrity and should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community".
	I say that because it is very important to remember--I have said this before in this House--that the Good Friday agreement was an international agreement. It was signed not just by the UK Government but also by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and with the active support and presence of the Government of the United States.
	That is very important because it was in pursuance of that paragraph in the agreement that the Patten commission was appointed. It is something of a paradox that someone who was a former chairman of the Conservative Party is certainly unpopular in ways that I would not have anticipated.
	I am sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt is more qualified to speak on this than I am, but the basic problem, as we know, is that Northern Ireland is a divided community. It has been divided for not just the past 30 years but for the past 80 years. We must not forget that background.
	Perhaps I may quote from the evidence which the Catholic Bishops of Northern Ireland gave to the Patten commission. Two remarks were made which reflect that division. On the one hand, it was said about the RUC that there was "a deep legacy of distrust" and on the other hand that there was,
	"the deep sense of possession of the police force by the Unionist community".
	I join those noble Lords who have paid tribute to the RUC for its gallantry and bravery. It is a very uncomfortable position to be caught in the middle of a divided political society and to have to defend not just the people but very often yourself under difficult circumstances.
	The Patten report stated that,
	"the issue of policing is at the heart of many of the problems that politicians have been unable to resolve in Northern Ireland".
	If we are to tackle that problem head-on, and not just for the next two, three or four years but permanently, we must do so in the spirit in which the police force becomes a policing service. Of course, it must be effective, efficient and accountable. It must be accountable not only to a certain formal body but in ways that are transparent so that it becomes accountable to the entire community.
	I do not want to speak on the issue of targets versus quotas or anything like that. But in that respect, it is extremely important to say that even the composition does not matter so much as winning the confidence of the community. That is an extremely important point. Permanent peace will come when that is achieved.
	I want to say something about accountability. Paragraph 1.15 of the Patten report refers to,
	"effective and democratically based oversight of policing".
	"Democratically based oversight" does not necessarily mean "politically interfered with oversight". It means that the community's involvement through democratic procedures and processes is taken into account so that people feel that the police belong to them. That is the sort of policing that we have been able to achieve here on the mainland and I do not see any reason why that should not be our goal for Northern Ireland.
	I do not want to go into the details of the Patten proposals and so on. If I thought that the Bill did not follow Patten, my direction would be exactly the opposite to that of some noble Lords who have already spoken. So I shall not go into those details. But it is extremely important that the issue of human rights should be addressed absolutely head-on, not only because the European Convention on Human Rights is about to come into operation in the UK, but also because the issue of human rights embodies many of the fundamental concerns which any policing force must address in a modern society. It is in a difficult situation like this--I agree that it is a difficult situation because peace has not come yet--that human rights are most likely to be violated. We must be vigilant. If the community does not see the policing service as its policing service, operating in its interest, we shall not be able to achieve the peace and prosperity that we want for Northern Ireland.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, at the start I should declare an interest as the recipient of hospitality in Dublin a few weeks ago. I acted as host for the Police Federation of Northern Ireland at a deeply moving occasion when a number of those who were widowed and a number who were crippled as policemen during the past 30 years were received with great kindness and imagination by the Taoiseach, the entire political establishment in Dublin, as well as a goodly proportion of the Irish press.
	It is a great pleasure to have the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It is some years since I have had that privilege in your Lordships' House. He always presents a case that is difficult to answer. In this instance, I wholly agree with what he said about the need for transparency. However, I draw his attention to chapter 4 of the Patten report which, among other things, deals with views throughout the nationalist community of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but a remarkable phenomenon was noted by my right honourable friend Mr Patten in which it was generally accepted by a large majority in the nationalist community that the RUC was biased against them. But in every community a clear majority felt that that was the case in the whole Province but that it did not apply to the RUC in their particular area.
	My right honourable friend concluded differently from me, that that meant that perhaps there was a bias. I concluded that from their own experience they felt that there was not one, but that they had been told that there was a bias in the community as a whole and they accepted that general view. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, may feel that that may be worth some consideration.
	Turning to the Bill, your Lordships will agree that we consider this Bill at a time when explosions and attacks on security forces have, thankfully, declined dramatically in Northern Ireland. The Province seems to us, and to most of its inhabitants, to be more nearly at peace than at any time in the past 30 years. Countless lives have, therefore, been saved and in many parts of the Province prosperity has either returned or has made an appearance for the first time, particularly in the western part of the Province.
	On this side of the water, both press and public take that impression at face value and, as we all are, they are grateful that the threat of explosion and assassination seems, for the moment, to have all but disappeared here as well. Although as my noble friend Lady Seccombe pointed out, and as those of us who unfortunately have professional relations with the Special Branch know, that is more because of the efficiency of the security forces in protecting us than because the threat has disappeared.
	In the context of this Bill I ask whether this apparently happy state of affairs is real, or is it a delusion. Of course, we long for it to be real and we long for the terrorists to long for it to be real. Indeed, it seems to me that the whole peace process has been based on the expectation that the terrorists can be seduced into surrendering the uncomfortable politics of the Armalite in exchange for the comfortable politics of the ballot box and the ministerial limousine.
	What is the reality on the ground in Northern Ireland? The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is in a better position than most to tell us about this and we greatly look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject. My Northern Irish friends tell me that the reality in many parts of the Province is still extremely grim. It seems that increasingly the poorer areas are becoming ghettos. Many areas have always been ghettos, whether loyalist or republican, but the mixed areas are becoming fewer. I use the word "republican" rather than "nationalist" deliberately because, as I understand it, the SDLP is now too soft to count for much any more in the mean streets or in bandit country.
	These ghettos are ruled by terrorist organisations. They exact total obedience through brutality and the fear of brutality. Like all terrorist organisations, both loyalist and republican, they have become indistinguishable from organised criminals. Some, of course, continue to finance a portion of their operations from the donations of deluded romantics in the United States of America, but increasingly both sides finance themselves by becoming mobsters. Their rackets are drugs, extortion, protection, prostitution, taxi services and all the paraphernalia of organised banditry which we associate more with 1930s Chicago than with a modern United Kingdom. Genuine peace and the rule of law will seriously damage those bandits' financial health and luckily for them, but not for us, we have not yet achieved genuine peace.
	The Government, through the RUC, have to provide us with statistics and if noble Lords visit the website of the RUC, they will find that in the year so far to 2nd July there have been no fewer than 125 paramilitary-style attacks, compared with 136 in the comparable period last year. In parenthesis, it is interesting to note that both for last year and this there was a higher recorded incidence of loyalist attacks than republican attacks. That is perhaps because the republicans are less divided on the ground, have greater control over their own people and do not need to intimidate them. In the four years to December 1999 recorded paramilitary attacks--we know about the recorded ones only--fell from 326 in 1996 to 196 in 1998, but they rose again to 206 in 1999. I believe that many of those incidents reflect the fact that the godfathers intimidate their own communities rather than attack the other side.
	Your Lordships can only imagine how that regime restricts the liberties that we fondly imagine every citizen of the United Kingdom enjoys. Just in case we consider that for the police and security forces the situation has returned to normal, the RUC's website is equally instructive. It is true that, thank God, in 1999 and so far during the current year, no security force deaths have been attributed to terrorism. However, between 1st and 15th July this year alone, there have been 332 attacks on the security forces, including 13 shootings; 88 RUC officers and six soldiers have been injured. There have also been 313 petrol bombing incidents and 611 incidents of criminal damage of various kinds.
	Clearly, from those statistics alone one can see that large areas of the Province are still controlled by terrorists. I fear that that is hardly surprising. This is where I begin to become rather controversial. It is a province whose newly devolved government contains representatives of terrorist organisations whose very presence there has been engineered by the threat of a return to full-scale terrorist war.
	For anyone who doubts that, noble Lords have only to contrast the public statements of the British and Irish Governments with the contents of an internal Provisional IRA document known in the trade as "TUAS" and circulated before the first ceasefire referred to by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. TUAS is an acronym that stands for "tactical use of armed struggle" and boils down to one thing: if the British Government do not give way, threaten a resumption of the bombing campaign and then they will. Contrast that with British and Irish Government pronouncements, which seem to me to reflect all too clearly the success of TUAS.
	In the Dail, on the day that the Downing Street declaration was promulgated what now seems many years ago, Mr Spring, the then Republican Foreign Minister, said,
	"We are talking about the handing in of arms and are insisting that it would not be simply a temporary cessation of violence to secure what the political process offers. There can be no equivocation in relation to the determination of both governments in that regard".
	Yet in spite of those admirable sentiments, in the wake of a resumption of violence followed by,
	"a complete cessation of military operations"--
	a declaration in which the word "permanent" was conspicuously absent--the government of whom I was a member decided to assume as a "working assumption" that the ceasefire was indeed permanent. The retreat from our insistence on an unequivocal surrender of the Armalite in favour of the ballot box has continued since then, accelerating rapidly since May 1997.
	I shall not weary your Lordships with a repetition of the various formulations which have been drawn to our attention during the ensuing years and months. But your Lordships will know that, as a result, Sinn Fein was able to enter talks without handing over a single weapon, and then enter the Executive itself.
	We are all aware of how, in order to preserve the ceasefire, the Government have failed to stick to any of their demands that weapons should be surrendered before the peace process began. TUAS has worked; and seeing that it works, the loyalists are gearing themselves up to be able to respond in kind. Instead of strengthening the centre of the political spectrum--something which all of us in this House want to see and which so many people, particularly representatives present from all sides of the community in Northern Ireland, have endeavoured to achieve--governments of both persuasions have achieved exactly the opposite. They have hollowed out the centre and strengthened the extremes instead. That may secure a temporary respite. But in the end it leads to trouble, particularly when large numbers of the most dangerous terrorists are being let out without any guarantee that they will not return to their past.
	This Bill must be viewed in that context. Those of us who believe in parliamentary government and its consequences for the rule of law must believe that those who govern us and sit in our representative institutions will not use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their aims. We must also believe that the government we elect will use every means to ensure that that is so and remains so; that they will be prepared to draw a bottom line if it is not so and to defend the ballot box against the Armalite by any means at their disposal if it cannot be done by sweet reason.
	If there is no sanction that parliamentary government is prepared to use to force the men of violence to rely exclusively on Parliament and the ballot box, I suggest that the men of violence will always win. In spite of the feebleness of British governments of all political complexions and their readiness to give in to the threat of violence, the RUC has become an increasingly effective first line of defence against terrorism, as my noble friend so eloquently told us. As she also said, that is true not only for the inhabitants of the Province, but also for those of us on this side of the water and the inhabitants of the Republic as well.
	This Bill, in a number of ways, undermines the capability of the RUC as an effective anti-terrorist force at a time when terrorism and the threat of terrorism are at least as potent as they have ever been, certainly in their effects if not in the number of victims that they are taking, which seems to be no longer necessary. I shall look at three examples in addition to the points made by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. First, the name and oath as set out in Clauses 1 and 38 are not merely cosmetic: they affect morale in a way one has to have been shot at to understand. Anybody who knows the works of Sir John Keegan, particularly In the Face of Battle, will understand the importance of symbols of this kind.
	Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, the imposition of quotas is counterproductive and shows clearly that the Government have ignored, as my right honourable friend Mr Patten did, the role that intimidation plays in preventing Catholics joining the RUC.
	Thirdly, the composition of the district policing partnerships could all too easily allow representatives of terrorist groups who have no convictions to become members. Of course, we shall return to those matters in the remaining stages. I hope that it will be possible, before Committee stage, to see the regulations anticipated in Clauses 44 (on recruitment) and 52 (on emblems and flags) at least in draft before we come to discuss the clauses in detail.
	However, I must place on record my own fear that, although much of this Bill is welcome, as many noble Lords have already said--indeed, the RUC welcomed at least 70 per cent of the recommendations of the Patten report--there are parts of it whose consideration, let alone introduction, I am sorry to see before the ghettos are once again free, while the Government continue to submit to terrorist threats, and before the terrorists have thrown away the Armalite in favour of the ballot box. If that happens, it is right that we should examine many matters and be prepared to treat former terrorists in a spirit of generosity and reconciliation, which is absolutely essential if peace is to return to the Province.
	Until we are sure that terrorism has really disappeared from the Province and that the men of terror are really prepared to give up violence, I wonder whether we are aware of the delusion from which we are suffering. Indeed, I wonder whether my old friend Mr Patten does not feel, in his heart of hearts, the same. I noticed in a report in The Examiner dated 17th February this year that he was quoted in the context of the suspended Assembly. Some of his strictures in that press report apply to what happens in the Province when the Assembly is suspended. However, there are other strictures which do not seem to apply to that circumstance. For example, in setting out the central arguments for his policing reforms, my former right honourable friend stated that the arguments,
	"are affected if some people now eschew their obligation to give primacy to democracy".
	He went on to say,
	"While some of our proposals would depend on what happened on the ground, some of our proposals would clearly affect for the better what was happening on the ground. But it is difficult to make those judgements when one isn't entirely clear where the security situation is going to develop".
	He adds,
	"Now, clearly, a commitment to the democratic process involves an equal commitment to taking the gun out of politics, and I don't see how any number of elaborate casuistries can avoid that simple proposition".
	I hope that my right honourable friend can be persuaded to repeat that remark in the context of this Bill.
	As your Lordships will have ascertained, I agree particularly with that last sentence. Until the gun is taken out of Irish politics, North and South, we need a police force in Northern Ireland with the morale and capability to continue doing the job it has been doing for the past 30 years with increasing success and courage. If we act in the way we are acting now before that happens, we are in danger of breaking the very foundations on which this House acts and which another place supports as the foundation of our own polity, let alone anybody else's.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to address your Lordships' House tonight on a subject in which I have a keen and very practical interest. As many noble Lords know, I am chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority and deputy chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, the body that represents all police authorities in England and Wales as well as the current Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Therefore, I hope that I can share a little "insider knowledge" with noble Lords in this debate.
	As my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton made clear, we wish to see a single, integrated policing service that has the confidence and the respect of the whole community in Northern Ireland. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government have recognised the need to specify a minimum as well as a maximum number of members for the policing board. That is essential under any political circumstances. I am also encouraged by the enhancements that have been made to the code of practice for district policing partnerships, the provisions for police officers to register their associations and the increased emphasis on human rights.
	We very much welcome the introduction of a new code of ethics as proposed by Patten. We are pleased that the Government have recognised that it should be the responsibility of the police board to issue the code and assess its effectiveness. But how effective can the code be if officers are only asked to, "read and understand it"? Surely, we must, as a minimum, expect officers to carry out their duties in accordance with the code--just as they are required to do in respect of the oath. We also welcome the decision to remove some of the wholly unreasonable restrictions placed upon the board's ability to ask for a report of the chief constable, or initiate an inquiry. But there remain fundamental concerns in this area, about which I shall say more in a moment.
	I make no apologies for reminding your Lordships that policing by consent--meaning the consent of all our communities--is the touchstone of the UK system; a system of which we are justifiably proud. But that can only be achieved by putting in place a series of checks and balances which ensure appropriate accountability both to central government and, crucially, to the local community. The right balance has to be struck in the relationships between the Secretary of State, the policing board and the chief constable. As it stands, the Bill has not, in our view, got the balance right. Of course the Secretary of State must have a role; indeed, that is right. We look forward to the future when that role may be devolved to a Minister of Justice. But, at the moment, the role of central government is rather too great.
	It is in this respect that the Government have so far failed to address a number of key issues. In my research into these key issues, not only have I found support on a Cross-Bench basis in this House but also that a broad political consensus exists among the parties in Northern Ireland. That support should, in itself, have commended the necessary changes to the Government. I am optimistic that the Government will find time to listen and heed those points.
	I return to the policing board's powers of inquiry. While the Government have removed one of the restrictions, we believe that the stranglehold is still too tight. The Patten report was clear about this. It said that the board should,
	"be able to follow up any report from the Chief Constable by initiating an inquiry into any aspect of the police service or police conduct".
	But the Bill imposes significant restrictions on the board's decision-making capabilities--not only in the specified majority for taking such a decision, but also in the detailed requirements that must be followed before a question can even be put that an inquiry be held. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord say that he would make further changes. I hope that he will address some of the points that I have highlighted. I look forward to further discussion on these issues.
	However, perhaps I may make this simple point. Even if the board manages to persuade the Secretary of State that an inquiry is needed, it will still have to pay all the costs. That could be almost impossible, given its modest budget. Therefore, I urge the Government to look again at this point. I should remind the noble and learned Lord that the Patten report was quite clear that the powers of the Secretary of State were already too great and should be reduced. It said:
	"In Northern Ireland the Secretary of State is much more directly involved [than in England and Wales in policing]--these arrangements are not a basis for democratic accountability in the sense of the police being ... responsible to the community".
	Best value is a prime example. Since 1st April of this year, all police authorities in England and Wales have had to ensure that local people get best value from their policing services. It is a challenge that we are meeting with commitment and enthusiasm. As one who is now wrestling with this new duty, I can say that one thing is crucial: there must be absolute clarity about roles and responsibilities. In England and Wales, the duty is placed squarely on the police authority. But as the Bill stands, both the policing board and the chief constable are to be responsible for best value in their respective spheres. The chief constable is to be answerable for improving police services to the Secretary of State, instead of to local people through the policing board. I do not feel that it is overstating the case to say that I believe that that will be a recipe for disaster, because of their divided responsibilities.
	The policing board's primary duty is to secure an efficient and effective police service. Consistency demands that the obligation to secure best value--that is, economy, efficiency and effectiveness--rests with the policing board. How else can the board fulfil its key statutory responsibility? How else can the board ensure that local people get improved policing services? As the Bill stands, I simply cannot conceive how those points can be answered.
	Similarly, in the provisions covering the police planning process, the Secretary of State takes to himself the power to regulate the content of the board's policing plan, in a way that is at odds with the position in England and Wales. I can tell the Minister that that will be bitterly opposed by police authorities in England and Wales.
	The strength of the police planning process lies in setting broad performance targets. But the existing powers given to the Police Authority under the 1998 Act are removed. Again, as chairman of a police authority, I know only too well how critically important it is for the new board to be able to set clear targets reflecting the priority and effort that local people attach to particular aspects of police work. I make no apologies for referring again to the Patten report, which said:
	"We see no justification for the Government to second-guess the Board in these matters".
	Again, this is an issue to which we shall return at a later stage.
	Finally, and extremely seriously, the ability of the board to hold the chief constable properly to account on financial matters has been removed. By placing accounting responsibility for the police grant on the shoulders of the chief constable, the Government will not only damage the board's credibility but also take away from it the valuable right of internal audit, which is crucial. It is a crucial investigatory and oversight function. This departs from long-established practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is opposed by all the major political parties in Northern Ireland and by the Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan.
	I have only had time to highlight some of the most obvious and serious concerns. There are many other detailed points to which we shall need to return, including the board's role in consulting local people. But our concerns are clear. The system of checks and balances is out of kilter in that it concentrates too much power on the Secretary of State and the chief constable, thereby negating the role of the board. The consequence of those shortcomings is that we have a genuine fear that the new board: will not have the power that the Independent Commission intended; will not command the support of either the police service or the community; and that, by this somewhat parsimonious approach, the Government will, in reality, undermine the thrust of their own legislation. I look forward to hearing the Government's response and to further, and more detailed, discussion on these important issues when we reach the Committee stage.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, at the outset one has to say that there are aspects of Patten and aspects of the Bill which are positive. Many recommendations of an operational nature I agree with. Many recommendations members of my party agree with. But, perhaps more importantly, many recommendations the RUC agrees with and welcomes--indeed, many it proposed through the chief constable's review.
	However, there are many other areas where I have grave doubts and objections. Noble Lords sitting close to me may have noticed that I am wearing a rather distinctive tie. It is an RUC tie, specifically woven to commemorate the rightful and justified award of the George Cross to the RUC. Is it not ironic that a few short months after that award we should debate such aspects of future policing in Northern Ireland as a change of name?
	We cannot legislate for what is in people's hearts and minds. Whatever we decide, just as the names "bobby" and "Peelers" remain in use in areas of the country, so also will the name of the RUC, at least for my generation and my son's generation. Can one really foresee someone in trouble in Northern Ireland calling for help and saying, "I'm going to phone the Police Service of Northern Ireland"?
	In addition to the removal of the proud name "Royal Ulster Constabulary", I believe that this Bill is fundamentally flawed in at least two other aspects; namely, the proposed district policing partnerships, especially the proposals that Belfast be divided into four sub-bodies, and the proposal for 50/50 recruitment. I have grave reservations about creating 29 local area commands corresponding to the 26 local council areas, plus an additional three for the City of Belfast. With the loss of a whole tier of management in the RUC via decentralised command, I fear that that bodes ill for the future and will serve to balkanise the police force in Northern Ireland.
	The population of Northern Ireland is only 1.6 million. We do not need 29 local area commands. I believe that there needs to be a regional level of command above the local areas and that the unitary nature of the RUC must be preserved.
	In mainland terms, the City of Belfast is not particularly large, with no more than 300,000 or so electors. While Belfast may currently be divided by the RUC into four local areas of command, these do not mirror the four parliamentary constituencies and extend far beyond the city limits as far as Lisburn to the south, Antrim town and Carrickfergus to the north, and Bangor to the east, incorporating parts of the constituencies of South Antrim, East Antrim, Lagan Valley, Castlereagh and North Down. I am confident that 300,000 people could more effectively and more efficiently be served by one local area command.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord is possibly not aware that the City of York, which has a population of about 100,000 people, is divided into four commands, as it were. That system works effectively. The noble Lord may like to consider that point before he comments further.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. However, the City of York may not have the divisions of the City of Belfast, the consequences of which for policing are a matter of great concern to me.
	I do not wish to labour this particular operational point at this stage of the Bill. I am, however, concerned at the likely consequences which would follow the establishment of 29 local area commands, and especially four in Belfast. These 29 area commands will all be mirrored by, monitored by and potentially dominated and influenced by district policing partnerships. Four such commands for Belfast is just too many, unnecessary and plainly planned for political reasons and not operational policing. But, what is worse, it has the potential to subject the police to intolerable sectarian and party political pressures at grassroots level.
	As the Belfast Telegraph of 21st July stated:
	"Can anyone imagine the chaos which would ensue if the policing of Drumcree or contentious events in Belfast were fully at the behest of local policing boards?"
	It does not require an Honours degree in current affairs to realise that a West Belfast sub-committee of the DPP would be almost exclusively republican and nationalist--effectively Sinn Fein/IRA. The East Belfast DPP sub-committee would be almost exclusively loyalist and Unionist, with a substantial degree of input from the UDA and the UVF.
	The religious and political mix in the north and south of the city would at least ensure some measure of cross-community representation on the DPP sub-committee for those areas, but that is scant consolation. The idea behind this seems to be to create a Protestant/Unionist dominated DPP for Protestant areas and a Catholic/nationalist dominated DPP for Catholic areas. This simply cannot be acceptable. This is cantonisation of policing of the worst kind and would facilitate paramilitary linked parties increasing their influence over certain areas.
	At least a Belfast-wide district policing partnership would dilute the influence of parties whose support is concentrated in particular areas. Sinn Fein/IRA might have nearly 70 per cent support in West Belfast, but across the city as a whole the figure is much lower. Just as it would be wrong to leave policing in West Belfast in the hands of republicans, so it would be wrong to place policing in East Belfast in the hands of loyalists. I want to see an effective district policing partnership and police force for all the people in every part of the City of Belfast and Northern Ireland.
	If the purpose of the Patten report was to take politics out of policing, one needs only to look at this proposal to see just how completely it has failed. Instead of taking politics out of policing, it seeks to place politics at the very heart of policing. Whatever happened to the concept of treating people equally as citizens rather than as members of a particular religious or ethnic group? I believe that the more we focus on divisions in society, the more we risk reinforcing those divisions by constantly emphasising them, rather than seeking to concentrate on those factors which unite us. Twenty-nine sub-committees of the district policing partnership will hardly encourage unity. They will merely promote and reinforce ideas of separateness.
	As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, over the years the City of Belfast, and indeed other areas of Ulster, have seen the creation of far too many ghettos--Protestant and Catholic alike. It is my belief that in the new dispensation we should do all we can to create a new community in Northern Ireland. The proposed large number of DPPs will hinder that. They will be divisive; they will foster community tensions and, yet again, the police will be piggy in the middle.
	I now turn to the matter of 50/50 recruitment. I am opposed to the concept of 50/50 recruitment to be introduced in the Bill. It is positive discrimination. I oppose all forms of statutory discrimination, whether positive or not. I wish to see any police force in Northern Ireland--indeed, throughout the United Kingdom--reflect the society that it polices: 50/50 recruitment will not remedy Catholic under-representation in the police force because it attempts to address the symptom rather than the cause.
	We are all aware of the cause of Catholic under-representation in the police force--the lack of Catholic applicants and the pressures they were under. During the period between the cessation of military operations by paramilitary organisations and the suspension of police recruitment, Catholic applications to the RUC doubled from 11 per cent to 22 per cent. This desirable trend was achieved not by positive discrimination but by encouraging young Catholic applicants.
	Perhaps I may illustrate the point by reading a letter which was published in this morning's edition of the Irish News, a newspaper with a mainly nationalist readership. The letter was written by an officer of the RUC. He writes:
	"I want to make my position clear to my co-Catholics in this part of Ireland. I joined the RUC in 1971 when living in Derry with my mother. My father died in 1964, leaving us a poor family financially. I joined the police to help my mother 'make ends meet'. When a prominent republican heard of this, he and three of his 'henchmen' called at my mother's house in the dead of night and threatened her, physically, over my job. She was told what they would do to her if I wouldn't resign, and her windows were broken to emphasise the point. That's the type now in government, that's why Catholics don't join the RUC. Pity these 'henchmen' don't have the background and good character required for the RUC".
	The letter was signed simply "Good Catholic".
	Targets and affirmative action measures encouraging applications from under-represented groups--from all under-represented groups--are the only means of securing a police force that reflects the society that it polices. Indeed, targets and affirmative action could include targets for female recruits and for recruits from ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland, thus redressing under-representation in other areas, not only Catholic under-representation.
	It may have crossed the minds of some noble Lords, why not extend the quota system to female recruitment or to the recruitment of ethnic minorities? There are two points to be made in regard to this question. First, it would seem that it would be illegal under European law, in contravention of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the Implementation of the Principles of Equal Treatment for Men and Women, to have this quota recruitment scheme apply to male/female recruitment. Secondly, many ethnic minorities would fall under the grouping of "other". Fifty/fifty recruitment is not 50 per cent Protestant and 50 per cent Catholic; it is 50 per cent Catholic and 50 per cent "other".
	Therefore, not only will young Protestant applicants suffer reverse discrimination, but so will young Muslim applicants, as will young Jewish applicants, Hindu applicants, Sikh applicants, Baha'i applicants--need I continue? These are all religious groups prevalent in Northern Ireland society which will be discriminated against by being labelled "other" for recruitment purposes by this Bill.
	The question of legality will be raised again in December 2002, when two directives flowing from Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty will be implemented. It appears from the draft of these directives that the 50/50 recruitment in this Bill would be contrary to these directives. I question the morality of legislating in the interim.
	I know that the hour is getting late and that I have been speaking for some time, but I am going to be pedantic and further demonstrate my concerns by an example. The police have 100 vacancies for recruits: 150 "others" apply and there are 50 Catholic applicants. Fifty/fifty recruitment dictates that if all 100 vacancies are to be filled, 50 must be from Catholic applicants and 50 from "other" applicants. However, there is a standard for successful applicants and let us assume for a moment that 60 per cent of the "others" grouping and 60 per cent of the Catholic grouping make that standard. We now have 120 applicants who make the grade for 100 vacancies. This would be fine--except that only 30 of the 50 Catholic applicants, being 60 per cent, have made the grade. So, although we now have 90 applicants from the "other" group who have made the grade, only 30 can be employed.
	The police force requires 100 recruits so it has a choice: it either accepts an under-strength force or lowers the standard for applicants to permit all 50 Catholic applicants to be recruited. This totally corrupts the merit-based system of recruitment; it is clearly unacceptable.
	The only situation in which 50/50 recruitment would not cause reverse discrimination would be where 50 per cent of the population are Catholic and 50 per cent are "others" and where 50 per cent of the applicants are Catholic and 50 per cent are "others"--and if 50 per cent of the applicants were Catholics there would be no need for targets or affirmative action, never mind quotas.
	This 50/50 recruitment will fail to tackle the problem of low numbers of Catholic applicants and can lead only to resentment within the police force. Inevitably one recruit will perceive another recruit to be there, not on merit but because of his religion.
	As I have said, I wish to see a police force that reflects the society it serves. This can be achieved by affirmative action measures; it can be achieved in a morally and legally correct manner and it can redress under-representation in terms of sex, race and religion. In this regard, opinion formers from within the Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland and from within the nationalist community must play their part. Roman Catholic church leaders and nationalist leaders must encourage their young people to apply to join the police in Northern Ireland, and do so in the knowledge that all we want is a neutral, fair police force, accountable and respected. That is what we should aim for in policing in Northern Ireland, not statutory discrimination.
	Patten wanted to put human rights at the heart of policing. Paragraph 4.1 of the Patten report states:
	"It is a central proposition of this report that the fundamental purpose of policing should be, in the words of the Agreement, the protection and vindication of the human rights of all".
	This Bill puts statutory discrimination at the heart of policing rather than human rights.
	Perhaps I may leave the House with one final thought. On 12th November 1997, the Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir Ronnie Flannagan, gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. One of the members told him:
	"I think you are absolutely right that positive discrimination is totally counter-productive, based on my experience in other areas. People have to be advanced on merit".
	That member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was none other than Ken Livingstone, MP.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, I deeply regret that this debate is taking place today. In the 36 years that I have been in this building I cannot recall a Bill of such significance getting a Second Reading on the day that the House was to break up for the Summer Recess. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland will see it that way; that the House is treating the people of Northern Ireland with contempt.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if I could just remind my noble friend, the House is not finishing today; the House finishes tomorrow.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, I think my noble friend may regret having said that because tomorrow the last of the murderers will be released from the Maze Prison. This is a deeply emotional week in Northern Ireland. We have to think of the people, the victims, who have lost their loved ones, not only the RUC--although 310 of its men have been brutally murdered--but the 8,000 who were injured as well. We have to think of the civilians who were murdered. In this country we have to think of the 600 servicemen who were murdered. This has been a deeply disturbing week in Northern Ireland. This week, as I have read the newspapers--coming from Northern Ireland--I can feel the emotion. I know what is happening to the people over there as they see the brutal murderers of their loved ones being released. Is that price too high to pay for peace in Northern Ireland? There are many people who think so.
	We have heard that the Good Friday agreement is meant to charter the future of Northern Ireland and that we should attempt to move on. It is only the living that can move on. The dead cannot move on. The hundreds of people who have been murdered in Northern Ireland cannot move on and neither can their relatives who watched them die in such horrible circumstances.
	Many people quote the Belfast agreement. The Belfast agreement contained three main controversial points: first, the release of prisoners, to which I have just referred; secondly, the decommissioning; and, thirdly, what we are discussing today--the reform of the police. My noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spoke. The noble Baroness said that she was on the police authority for North Yorkshire. North Yorkshire has absolutely nothing to do with policing in Northern Ireland. The police in North Yorkshire are not about to murder their way out of the United Kingdom.
	In Northern Ireland we do not vote on Conservative and Labour terms, much to my regret. We vote on Unionist and nationalist, terms. The Unionist wants to remain within the United Kingdom. The nationalist wants to break away from the United Kingdom--at least we are so told. Northern Ireland is never very far away from elections. We have local government elections; we have the Assembly elections; we have the European elections; and we have the elections to this House.
	I shall tell your Lordships what is happening at the present moment. There are two nationalist parties, Sinn Fein and the party of which I was a former member, the SDLP. They are nationalist parties. I should explain what nationalism means. The other two parties are the Official Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party.
	Both those elements are fighting the next Westminster election. I believe that, particularly on the nationalist side, some of them are acting quite irresponsibly. We know that the SDLP is now following a republican agenda. Sinn Fein has attempted to demonise and to humiliate the RUC. It has a very good reason. It was the RUC which was responsible for arresting those terrorists, bringing them before the courts and having them sentenced to long terms of imprisonment--the same terrorists released this week. So it is in the interests of Sinn Fein and the terrorists to demonise the RUC.
	The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only yesterday broke the Anglo-Irish agreement. There was one notorious prisoner called McArdle who was detained for a few days. He did not qualify for release. The Secretary of State went to Her Majesty to ask for the royal prerogative to be used to let out one of the most notorious prisoners who had ever been in the Maze prison. That is a direct attack on the integrity of the Anglo-Irish agreement. The Bill is hugely political. Let us not underestimate the politics of the Bill.
	I say to the noble Baroness again that there is absolutely no comparison between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and any other police force within the kingdom. Unless one knows the history, the background and the ethos of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, one will not understand anything about it. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was created in 1920 by the partition of Ireland. The previous police force was known as the Royal Irish Constabulary. It was the Royal Irish Constabulary which had the badge that is now with the Royal Ulster Constabulary--a shamrock and a crown. Nothing could be more instructive to the two communities in Northern Ireland. In fact Sir Richard Dawson Bates, Minister of Home Affairs in the first government of Northern Ireland when the state was set up, attempted to do away with the Northern Ireland badge, the badge that has been so courageously worn by the RUC.
	The RUC was formed after many scores of RIC men were killed in the years between 1918 and 1920. They were given two jobs. One of them was to detect crime and criminals, the same as in any other police force in the United Kingdom. The other one--the one that led to their death, and the one which has led to this humiliation--was to protect the integrity of the state of Northern Ireland. It is because of that responsibility that the IRA has been killing RUC men over so many years.
	Sinn Fein is nationalist. The SDLP is nationalist. Let us look at the interpretation of that word. "Nationalist" means that they do not accept the state of Northern Ireland. They want to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That is the meaning of nationalism. It is for that reason that so many terrible tragedies have taken place.
	Now we have this Bill. It is hugely political. It is recognised to be such by the majority of people in Northern Ireland. I have already stated that the SDLP is following the agenda set down by Sinn Fein--Sinn Fein/IRA--the party that has murdered policemen and many others. I do not believe that Sinn Fein/IRA and the SDLP represent the true feelings of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. Every Catholic is not a nationalist. Every Catholic in Northern Ireland does not want to see the abolition of the Border. But parliamentary elections have determined those people who would have us believe so. I suggest that the Bill has been brought forward in a very emotional week. I read the papers today and saw photographs in them of people who have been released--people who murdered friends of mine. Therefore, I do not discuss this issue in a vacuum. I discuss it in the terms in which it is seen by the people of Northern Ireland.
	The provisions on 50/50 representation were brought forward with the best of intentions but they are totally unrealistic. In 1976 I sat at the other end of this building putting through the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. It was meant to deal with discrimination between Catholics and Protestants at the time. After all these years there is still an imbalance. A balance has not been achieved since 1976 and it will certainly not be achieved within the time limit of Patten. How do you discern a Catholic? When he applies to join the RUC, is he a Catholic because he went to mass on the previous Sunday? Perhaps he did not go to mass at all. Perhaps he is a lapsed Catholic. If he was lapsed, would it mean that he could not be taken in as a Catholic? I do not think that a solution can be found to that problem.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about the district partnerships. I have lived in Belfast and represented West Belfast for many years. I know every district in West Belfast. District partnerships set up in estates like Turf Lodge, Ballymurphy, New Barnsley and Andersonstown will be wholly dominated by the men with guns. They will not accept a police force. There will be no opportunity for anyone living on those estates to join the police force or the new police service without the sanction and approval of the men with guns. Even as things stand, the Catholics who are in the RUC--I recognise the courageous stand they have taken--cannot live in the ghettos. They have to live far way from their districts and far away from their relatives. They cannot even visit their parents because they are members of the RUC. There is still a great deal of intimidation.
	We learnt from our papers all last week and from contact with the RUC of the terrible number of brutal beatings. People are having their ankles and elbows blown off. They are not being killed, because that would break the IRA ceasefire, but the mutilations continue. I can tell the House--I say it with a great deal of realism--that there is no way in which the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries will give up control of their areas. There is absolutely no chance of that happening.
	The Bill may be visionary. I should like to see much of what it proposes come to pass. I approve of many of the elements in the Bill. Many of them have been brought about by the chief constable himself. Perhaps I may say that the present chief constable is the best chief constable we have ever had in Northern Ireland. I know that he is desperately trying to go along with the Bill. But can noble Lords imagine the position he is in? He wants to see the provisions of the Bill implemented. He wants to see an acceptable police force. But it would be less than human to expect him to forget the murders of members of his own force--the ones with whom he served, from the time he was a constable to when he became chief constable of the RUC. I believe that Ronnie Flanagan will do his best to implement these proposals.
	Tomorrow the House adjourns for two months. That adjournment provides an opportunity for the Government to look at all the imperfections in the Bill and to recognise that nationalists will never accept the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. All Catholics are not nationalists. Northern Ireland is not like North Yorkshire and is not like some parts of London. Northern Ireland is a place apart. We have had to live with the awful circumstances of the past 30 years. I hope that we can do something with the police force through the Bill. But I would say, with rather more hope than optimism, that we need to bring about the right circumstances. I wish the chief constable God speed.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I feel rather inadequate in following the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I only hope that the situation does not turn out to be as depressing as some of us have reason to believe it might.
	I welcome the Government's willingness to improve the Bill at later stages. The vast proportion of the Bill is most welcome and comes from the chief constable's review, which was not complete when Chris Patten was moved in. I and many others object to and oppose the change of name from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I oppose it very strongly indeed. I am full of admiration for the dedication, professionalism and sacrifice of its members over the past 70 plus years and especially since 1969. In the security forces I served beside them on a daily basis for 17 years and I know the sacrifices they and their families made during that time. I may say that among the very best were some from the minority side of our community. I stress that. I entirely support all the tributes paid to them.
	I agree with most of the reservations that have been expressed in the debate. I should like to highlight a few additional concerns that I have on other parts of the Bill. The Northern Ireland policing board will take over from the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I have no problem with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, mentioned the division of responsibility. As she was the first and only speaker to do that, I thought that I would reiterate the point with regard to one particular circumstance. Under Clause 3, the board will continue to be responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of the police, the police support staff and the traffic wardens. However, under Clause 12, the chief constable will take over financial accountability. That is a change from the present position whereby that responsibility is vested in the police authority, as it is in England and Wales.
	I have two questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that responsibility for efficiency should not be divorced from financial accountability, as that is the very means of control through value for money and so on? Secondly, why should the position be changed if it is considered good practice in England and Wales? Why should the position be different in Northern Ireland? Surely those who hold the purse strings call the tune. I would not insist on those two responsibilities necessarily being with the police board. I would leave that up to someone else to decide. But there must be outside auditing, no matter who has those responsibilities. I believe that they should be vested in the same place, wherever it is.
	Before leaving the subject of policing boards, I have one matter to raise in comparing the board with the district policing partnerships in Part III of the Bill. At present, members of the police authority, which is to become the policing board, sign a notice declaring their awareness of the Official Secrets Act. They also agree to a code of practice and the seven principles of public life. In effect, they undertake, among other things, to observe confidentiality. I have reservations about the establishment of district policing partnerships. However, I know that many other people have concerns about their composition and, in particular, about the backgrounds of the people involved. I share that concern. Can the Minister assure the House that those individuals will have to undertake the same commitments to confidentiality and good practice as those members of the policing board? If he says that the police board will bring in regulations, I will not be satisfied. I should like to know that it will occur. That would perhaps allay some of the fears which have been generated by these partnerships.
	The reorganisation of the structure of the police force into police districts, as provided in Clause 20, will bring our policing structures into line with the remainder of the United Kingdom. Some may have a fear of this. However, I have read Police Force Reorganisation--Getting it Right by Jonathan Nichols, a report published in 1991 on behalf of the Home Office by the Police Research Group and I am quite impressed with it. I shall not venture into discussing the situation in Belfast, although I know of the problems. However, I do not live there and we have just heard a far more expert account of it than I could ever give.
	Nevertheless, the report is excellent and stresses the difficulties of reorganisation into the United Kingdom equivalent of police districts, which are known as BCUs--basic command units. A quotation is cited at the beginning of the report and is worthy of note:
	"We need to meet any new situation by reorganising. And what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress by producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation".
	So pronounced Gaius Petronius, writer, satirist and organiser of Nero's personal revels in the Roman Empire. Not much changes. It is a warning; it will take a great deal of good leadership and professionalism successfully to carry this out. It will not happen overnight.
	Although I support this change, I must ask if we are doing it at quite the right time. I am not against the change, I am for it, but perhaps not yet. In an Audit Commission report, Paper 9 of the Police Papers in England 1991, such commands are defined as,
	"the lowest level in the command structure which can provide a 24-hour policing service able to respond to all incidents and deal fully with most of them without frequent external support".
	That is key to a breakdown of that kind of command structure. It is a fact that the type of problems that occur frequently in Northern Ireland--marches, bombings and shootings--all require more resources than those held at divisional level, let alone at the envisaged smaller district commands. In principle I am supportive, but is the time yet right?
	On that question, another problem lies in the offing. Assuming that the reorganisation is put in place, it may not be long before it will have to be reorganised. It is common knowledge, now that we have an Assembly, that it is likely to look at reducing the number of district councils in local government. However, police districts are to conform with district council areas. Again, I ask the question: are we being a little premature in bringing about this change by enacting the Bill?
	I should like to discuss for a moment the 50/50 quotas. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I shall not detail half of the matter. My noble friend Lord Rogan has covered it well. We all understand his figures and will understand them even better when we come to read them. I shall leave out my contribution on that point. However, they emphasise the fact that, first, we should seek targets and not quotas. I wish to examine this briefly in relation to police recruits and thus add a little to the words of my noble friend. Secondly, I should like to discuss the police support staff, who have not yet been mentioned.
	If we meddle with the acceptance of recruits by accepting outside of the order of merit to achieve our quotas, then--assuming that the order of merit is some indication of the merit of policemen and women in the future--by taking people of lower ability, we are creating a less able group of police. In the longer run that will create what will amount to a two-tier system. Noble Lords will note that I am not saying that Roman Catholics are less intelligent than Protestants. I say merely that, with the numbers coming forward, that will be the effect of taking people from further down the order of merit.
	In addition to creating a level of, perhaps, less able policemen, we shall also create a problem for the future. Future promotions will be made on merit. That will not reflect either a 50/50 or any other form of quota. How will we get around this? Perhaps the Minister could suggest a strategy that will solve the problem. I should also say that similar circumstances have prevailed in America with the black population and, I believe, in Canada with French Canadians in Quebec. This has been demonstrated in other areas.
	My next point is not mischievous. It may be a reality. A recruit's religion is taken as being that which he or she enters on a form held confidentially--and signed in confidence so that no one will witness it--by the equal opportunities branch of the police force. No proof is required and it can never be questioned in the service. Thus, if a Protestant or one of the "others" that make up their side of the 50/50 division, feels that he or she would have a better chance of being appointed if he or she were a Roman Catholic, all they need to do is to sign a form saying that they are Roman Catholic. No one can question it, even if that person walks out of the base on a Sunday morning and attends the Protestant St. Anne's Cathedral in Belfast. I appreciate that that is simplicity in itself, but in Northern Ireland people get around much more complicated situations. It is not even a criminal act, because the applicant could change religions in 20 minutes flat.
	I wish to mention quickly in the same context the position of the police support staff. At present they are made up of some who are employed directly by the Police Authority and some who were seconded from the Civil Service. The latter have now been incorporated into the Police Authority. In future, employees will come directly to the police board, as it will be constituted. In practice, this will make the present imbalance in that department even worse because the proportion of Catholics in the Northern Ireland Civil Service is higher than that in any policing body.
	There are those Catholics who may have joined the Civil Service in preference to a police body because they may have felt intimidated had they joined any organisation involving the police. In the Civil Service, they are asked to tick a box to discover whether they would be prepared to be seconded to the police. Some may not have ticked the box initially, but, after experience, some of those Catholics have done so and have then gone to serve with the RUC in that context. However, under the new arrangement, this option will no longer be made available and the imbalance in the police support staff will become even worse, even though it forms a part of the Northern Ireland police service. That was confirmed as a possibility to me this morning by the Police Authority.
	I should like to say that I am a strong supporter of the motive that lies behind the 50/50 principle. However, the Bill will be successful in that respect only if the SDLP and--dare I say it?--the Roman Catholic Church actively support their members in joining such a service. I have not heard that they have done so yet. Until that is done, there is not a hope on this side of kingdom-come that Sinn Fein will do so. I call on the SDLP and the Roman Catholic Church to make the move. The Bill goes as far as it is possible to go; it goes far further than would most reasonable people.
	In conclusion, I support the Bill and I hope that the Government will respond to the concerns that have been voiced today. I hope too that over the Recess they will think carefully and come back with some amendments of their own.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may join first in the tributes that have been paid to the courage and bravery of the men and women of the RUC. I should like also to join in the tributes paid to the Chief Constable who, I agree, is the best chief constable to have served in Northern Ireland. He is leading the police in a most excellent and far-sighted manner.
	I am conscious of the 302 deaths--murders--of RUC officers during the Troubles. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the last officer to die did so as a result of the bomb at Drumcree two years ago. He was, as it were, enforcing the law against loyalist paramilitaries. That shows that the RUC has been behaving, and has had to behave, in an even-handed manner. I am sure that it has been very difficult for members of the RUC to deal with some of the difficulties that they have had to face, particularly at Drumcree in the past few years. Therefore, we all agree that the George Cross was a well deserved tribute.
	I have sensed a great deal of pessimism in this debate. I have not detected much confidence about the future for Northern Ireland. I have heard rather gloomy prognostications. I am more of an optimist, although I share an awareness that there are many difficulties still to be overcome.
	I should like to comment briefly on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about prisoner releases. My view differs from his. Of course, the release of prisoners has been the single most difficult issue arising out of the Good Friday agreement. It has been painful for many. I recall the debates in this House when we dealt with the legislation for the release of prisoners. We all found it a painful prospect. Nevertheless, without prisoner releases, there would have been no Good Friday agreement, and without an agreement there would have been no prospect of peace for Northern Ireland. Admittedly, there is an unacceptably high level of paramilitary attacks within the communities, and these must be condemned absolutely and totally. No such attack should ever take place; the level is far too high. But the release of prisoners is something that we had to do as a government. I refer to the time when I was a Minister helping to further the policy. Without such prisoner releases, difficult as the matter is, the prospects for Northern Ireland would be much gloomier. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree with the point that he is making, painful though it is. But will he deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt; namely, that in securing the use of the prerogative yesterday, apparently, in the case of McArdle, the Secretary of State breached the wording of the Good Friday agreement, which we have all been told must be upheld to the letter, by securing the release of McArdle some seven months before the proper application of the agreement would have released him?

Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is a question that should be directed at the Minister. It would not be proper for me to speculate on the series of events that led to that release. I would rather leave it to the Minister. I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying, but I am sure that the Minister will be back in his place shortly and will be made aware of the question that has been asked.
	Perhaps I may comment briefly on one positive feature: the co-operation between the Garda and the RUC. It is not always widely appreciated. For example, at the Templemore training centre in the Republic there is a joint training programme for RUC and Garda officers, preparing them for service in Kosovo, where many are at present. When I was a Minister I met Garda officers in Donegal who told me about the joint project with RUC officers providing holiday facilities for children from Northern Ireland who had learning difficulties and other handicaps. I am aware that there is co-operation also on such issues as road safety. Co-operation in tackling the problems of drugs could usefully be developed further. The Patten report says that co-operation could be more formalised; nevertheless, there is a high level of co-operation. It is important that that should be understood.
	Looking at the Patten report and the Bill that is before the House, what are we seeking to achieve? There are clearly two aims. One is that there should be a higher share of Roman Catholics in the police force in Northern Ireland. No one quarrels with that. People say that the Roman Catholics' share of RUC membership increased at the time of the first ceasefire. All I would say is that in the period before the Troubles, in the late 1960s, there was a low proportion of Catholics in the RUC, so this is a long-term problem. I agree that intimidation is a serious factor. I have discussed the matter with individual RUC officers. But there are other reasons. One is surely that there is not the context and climate of opinion within many Catholic communities which encourages young Catholics to join the RUC. They do not have the support of the politicians or the good will that would be necessary if they were to take that step. I hope that that will change.
	The second aim of the Bill is surely that nationalist parties and Churches, the Catholic Church in particular, should all be prepared in the future to recommend that young people should join the police in Northern Ireland if that is the career that they want. That will be a key test of the overall success of the policy.
	I had quoted to me recently the words of the headmaster of a Catholic school in Northern Ireland. He said that there is no difficulty for his school leavers in joining the police; they do join--but they join the Strathclyde police, the Garda and the Metropolitan Police; they do not join the RUC. That is what must change if we are to have a proper basis for policing and peace in Northern Ireland. I learnt a long time ago that for the police to be effective anywhere, they must have the consent of the majority of people in the communities that they serve. That is what members of the Metropolitan Police have always said to me when I have discussed the matter with them. Because that consent is not as forthcoming in some parts of Northern Ireland as it ought to be, the task of the RUC is made much more difficult. If members of the RUC are to provide the professional policing that they want to provide, they need to have that support in their own communities. That means that they must have more support among the Catholic population than at present. I know that many Catholics support the RUC, but they voice that support in opinion polls; it is not done vocally, through the community leaders in that population.
	When the Bill is bedded down and becomes law, it is important that we get the police in Northern Ireland out of party politics. Nothing can be more damaging to professional policing than for the nature of the police service to be the subject of constant party-political argument. It does not lead to good policing. It is not fair to the police or to the people of Northern Ireland.
	My understanding is that every one of the 175 Patten recommendations had the endorsement of at least a police officer who put it forward to the Patten committee. I mention that because it is sometimes thought that the recommendations do not have any support among police officers.
	When I had the privilege of serving in Northern Ireland as a Minister, the Secretary of State suggested at the time of the publication of the Patten report that we should all visit individual RUC stations and discuss how officers felt about the report. I visited four RUC stations and at each I met 20 or 30 RUC officers. I visited Enniskillen, West Belfast, Dungannon and Newry. In each, I had an interesting, fascinating and difficult hour-and-a-half or two-hour discussion with the officers there. My sense was that, although they were not happy about the Patten report--they did not like the idea of a change of name or a change of badge, or some of the other points that have been raised in this debate--in the end they felt that if implementing the Patten recommendations would achieve the intended aims, they would go along with it, albeit reluctantly. That was the main sense of my discussions, although there were clear voices to the contrary, saying , "Under no circumstances". I felt, both at those meetings and in discussions that I have had with other RUC officers, that that was the way they saw it: "We don't like it, but if that's the way forward, we'll go along with it".
	I am aware that attitudes to the RUC among some people in Northern Ireland are polarised. Some people say that the police are always in the wrong; some say that they are always in the right. But, of course, common sense suggests that the truth is somewhere between the two. I take the view that when the police show that they are impartially upholding the law, they are entitled to the support of everyone in the community.
	The RUC officers in Northern Ireland to whom I have spoken are much more relaxed about the Patten report and about this Bill than are some politicians in Northern Ireland. At times the police have a more mature attitude to this matter. They know that they operate in a democratic society and have said to me that if a democratic parliament wants to change the way that the police service operates, they will accept it, even if they do not like it. I believe that the task of negotiating these changes with the police is a good deal more straightforward than are negotiations with some politicians.
	There are signs that some nationalist politicians and the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland are very unhappy with the Bill. My concern is that if in the end they are not willing to encourage young people to join the RUC, one of the main objectives will be negated. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had very little margin for manoeuvre. He is hemmed in between the views of Unionist politicians who do not want to go an inch further than they have gone--they do not even like the fact that they have had to go so far--and nationalist politicians who do not believe that all of their concerns are being met.
	I turn briefly to the name. I understand why the RUC does not want to lose its name. Equally, at the time of reorganisation of the Army, in some cases British regiments also lost their names through mergers. They did not like it, but they accepted it. It did not imply any denigration of the traditions, courage, VCs and other decorations earned by those regiments; it was simply a necessary change. I urge those who are concerned about the name to look at the precedent set by people from those regiments.
	In future where will the name the "Police Service of Northern Ireland" appear? Will the name be used widely?

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is the noble Lord sure that the analogy he draws between amalgamated regiments and the change of name of the RUC is an accurate one? After all, there is no doubt about the national allegiance of an amalgamated regiment. The implication is that those who support the change of name and the new badge will refuse allegiance to the Crown and that we are accommodating them.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that the noble Viscount goes rather far down that path. In quoting that example I seek merely to demonstrate that painful decisions had to be made and accepted by those associated with British regiments with long traditions. There is some analogy to be drawn between that difficulty and the difficulty faced by people who respect the long tradition of the RUC.
	I asked where the new name of the service would appear. At the moment police vehicles do not bear the name of the force. For example, I do not believe that in London police vehicles bear the name "Metropolitan Police". The name RUC is not in evidence on vehicles anyway, so I am not sure that the change is as significant as some make out. I understand the concern expressed by nationalist politicians about the use of "PSNI" for operational purposes and not others. However, I am also aware of the difficulty that faces the Secretary of State who has had little margin for manoeuvre.
	I am conscious that I have gone on for longer than I intended. I should like to make one key point and then bring my remarks to a close. One wonders whether anything else can be done to seek a more positive attitude to this legislation on the part of nationalist politicians, particularly the SDLP. Many say that they want more of the Patten recommendations in the Bill. Although I realise the difficulties, I wonder whether there is any way in which the Bill can provide future flexibility. The oversight commissioner, for example, has a particular remit. Could his remit be widened to give a little more flexibility to enable him to make recommendations to the Secretary of State about further managerial changes that may be introduced into police operations in Northern Ireland? I put that question to elicit the Government's view on it.
	Finally, the council of the isles is a new structure to be set up under the Good Friday agreement. I hope that policing can be on the agenda of future council meetings. That would enable all of the territories--England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man--to discuss joint problems and approaches to policing within that council.
	I am aware that the Secretary of State has endeavoured to meet many criticisms. I am also aware that many remain outstanding. I hope that they can be resolved and that, in the fullness of time, the SDLP will find it possible to be more supportive of this legislation than it has been able to be so far. I see the reform of policing in Northern Ireland as one of the biggest challenges of the peace process and an essential ingredient in making the Good Friday agreement effective to ensure long-lasting peace for the people there.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I recognise that the hour is late and we have covered a good deal of the ground. It is not my intention to weary noble Lords any more than is necessary by regurgitating what has already been dealt with. However, I should like to pay a great tribute to a number of noble Lords who have spoken tonight. I refer to my noble friends on these Benches. I also refer to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt--he is not present at the moment--who is a gentleman of very high integrity. I spent 20 years trying to keep him out of this building, because the noble Lord would regard himself as one of my political opponents. However, his contribution tonight on the issue of the police must be taken very seriously, and I commend it to your Lordships.
	Before I move on to a number of topics in this debate, on a night like this I should like to provide the Government Front Bench with a little relief. I pay tribute to the Minister for one matter which pleases me very much. The noble and learned Lord said today in response to a Question for Written Answer that the Government now recognise the plight of police widows and the difference between those who were widowed before 1992 and those widowed after. I should like to dwell on that for a moment or two. To be fair to the Minister, when I discussed this matter with him on a number of occasions he was most sympathetic and understanding. I am ashamed that I was not aware of the circumstances of these gallant ladies until recently. In fairness, when it was put to the Minister he recognised the situation immediately.
	This matter was drawn to our attention by a series of articles in the Belfast Telegraph written by the UK's regional feature writer of the year, Gail Walker. She is one of the best known and best established feature writers in Northern Ireland. She drew attention to the plight of widows. I seek the indulgence of the House to highlight one case which is humbling and shows how much we owe to the RUC itself and officers' families. In last night's edition of the Belfast Telegraph Gail Walker profiles the case of a woman who has been widowed for 31 years and is in receipt of a police pension. After inflation, that pension is now £137 a month. I am ashamed of that and the fact that I was unaware of it. To be fair to the Minister, he has taken the matter on board and appointed Mr John Steele, a gentleman of high integrity who is known to me, to look into these matters and report back at the end of October.
	With the Minister's permission, I should like to put the case to Mr Steele on behalf of the small group of widows who have been kept by us in penury. Their only sin--it is no sin--was to lose their loved ones who were protecting me so that I could sleep at night, and protecting all of us in no matter which part of the kingdom. That is a salutary lesson for us all. I know that the Minister will join me in saying that it behoves us to look at those who protect us in a different light. A few lines from Rudyard Kipling always come to mind on this issue:
	"The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace,
	For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!' But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot". That is something we should remember about all those people who protect us and look after us, whether in the RUC or the Army.
	I support changes in organisations. There must be changes in the RUC if and when we move towards a peaceful society in Northern Ireland. I do not think that noble Lords on these Benches or anywhere else would disagree with that. I still have reservations. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, referred to the state of society in Northern Ireland and debated whether we have a true state of peace. Ninety-five per cent of the Bill is excellent. However, 10 per cent is badly flawed and will be subject to much scrutiny in Committee and later stages.
	On the arguments about the 50/50 recruitment issue I make only one point. As the noble Lord, Lord Eames, knows, I am associated with one of the major grammar schools in Northern Ireland. Because it is classified as a state grammar school everyone who goes there is classified as Protestant--yet we do not know what proportion are not Protestant. I suspect that it could be 15 to 20 per cent. But the question is not asked; it is not relevant. An education is supplied. Those people will be disadvantaged if one adopts the 50/50 arrangement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the definition of a Roman Catholic. Is he someone who goes to mass? Is he a Roman Catholic if he is a lapsed Roman Catholic? If he is a lapsed Roman Catholic, is he eligible only for the part-time police? Where do we stop this nonsense? There is an honourable, fine, small Jewish community in Northern Ireland which has given great service to the community, including the police force. Where are they in all of this?
	Like all noble Lords who have spoken, I want to see more members of the minority Roman Catholic community in the RUC. I join with others in paying tribute to the work that they have done. But 50/50 recruitment is not the way. I suspect that that measure will be heavily attacked at a later stage.
	My noble friend Lord Rogan discussed the business of district boards. He is right. It is an issue which will be addressed in due course.
	The name and the badge are emotive issues. We should not underestimate their importance. We want politics and police separated. At this point in time they are not. While the various relationships of politics and police in Northern Ireland are still intertwined, it is important to remember that at this point in time the Good Friday agreement and the executive are not stuck together with superglue. They can come apart. For instance, too much stress on the community that I represent and the house of cards could come down. I fire that warning shot in the air.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, after the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I shall say little or nothing about the strategy of the IRA. It has been covered. However, because of the security situation over the past 30 years, the RUC has had to develop a counter-insurgency capacity and to operate, unlike any other police force in the UK, as an armed force which is itself a prime target of the paramilitaries. It is recognised as the most dangerous police force in the world in which to serve. It is also, despite that necessary extension of its role, one of the police forces of the United Kingdom. Incidentally it is the front line for the UK and it has special tasks.
	The Belfast agreement recognised the choice of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to maintain the Union. The RUC is thus one of the legitimate manifestations of British sovereignty in Northern Ireland, just as the Garda is of the Irish State.
	The Belfast agreement also states that the objective is,
	"As early a return to normal security arrangements as are consistent with the level of threat".
	The Patten report also recognises that the implementation of the report must depend on how the security situation develops. We have not yet developed that peaceful environment. Do I need to remind the House of Omagh or of the bomb threat in London this year? The hydra-headed IRA, as Gerry Adams famously said, has not gone away and the loyalists are making their own unwelcome contribution to the threat to the peace. One visit, two years after the agreement was signed, to an IRA arms cache by two distinguished men who are scarcely expert in assessing armaments does not balance the scales when, in the other scale, we see several hundred tried and convicted murderers freed into the communities where the families of their victims live. We see no decommissioning and in my view very little likelihood of it, since it remains the bargaining chip that Sinn Fein/IRA will and must use to extract yet further concessions. It is called "a creative climate for change". Sinn Fein/IRA might be said to have created a modern version of jam tomorrow, or a perversion of a scheme under which poorer families buy furniture and are given two years to pay, only in the IRA version we pay first for what we are never to receive.
	When I say "we", I believe that I am speaking for many of the people of Northern Ireland for we are all citizens of the same country. But we, here, do not suffer as they do from the consequences of the steady appeasement under both governments which has continued and of which parts of this Bill are the latest manifestations. I wait with interest to see what further concessions are to be made as the Bill goes through, as a result of the meetings between British and Irish officials which were reported to be taking place in London two weeks ago to consider what more could be done to appease the nationalists. The Minister indicated that he expected further changes to be made to the Bill here. I wonder whether that is what he meant.
	The Bill is premature. We should not be demobilising, or at the very least disarming our front-line troops, the police, when the war is far from over. And we are not bound to do so, even by the Belfast agreement. Northern Ireland is not yet a normal, peaceful society and we must ensure that the same mistakes are not made again in terms of accelerated devolution. We are not yet ready, as the agreement requires,
	"in the context of ongoing implementation of the relevant recommendations, to devolve responsibility for policing and justice issues",
	and particularly not after consultation with the Irish Government. We should not forget, either, that the Sinn Fein/IRA notion of complying with the agreement so far is clearly to say that their only policy is to abolish the RUC completely--presumably to replace it with a people's police. Their attitude does not augur well for a 50/50 police force and they should be challenged about this. We must strongly support Clause 52 of the Bill which protects the chief constable's right to report to the Secretary of State, and not the board, on issues where national security and related matters are involved. For the board, 10 of whose 19 members are to be nominated by the Assembly, is already a predominantly political body, a microcosm of the Executive. So far, the Government's own implementation plan stands firm on no devolution of national security, but for how long?
	Festina lente, hasten slowly, should be our approach to any measures that weaken our only defence against a still active terrorist threat. We should firmly reject any proposals which might tend to weaken the efficiency of the Special Branch, as is envisaged in the Government's implementation plan. We should also ensure the continued accountability to Parliament proposed by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, with reference to Clause 46(3) on recruitment, Clause 49 and Clause 52--the sensitive issue of emblem and flag--where the committee advocates the affirmative procedure.
	As the Government have chosen to accept and to translate into legislation a report which has sometimes treated the RUC as a political football rather than a highly professional and valuable police force, they must consider carefully the wider political impact of how the Bill is handled. As it started as a political issue, we have to consider it in political terms. Many of the recommendations made in the Patten report and reviewed in the plan are sensible. Many are welcomed by the force. Some of them, such as community policing on a larger scale, were already operating. Where the Government risk failing is in forgetting what the agreement--usually their bible--says:
	"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes".
	Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The RUC itself, and not just its badge, is such a symbol, not for an angry minority but for the majority of the people in Northern Ireland.
	Fortunately, Clause 52 of the Bill reserves to the Secretary of State the right to make regulations as to emblems and flags. When the time comes for those decisions they will send a very potent signal.
	But meanwhile the man in the street looks round and sees the continuing brutal intimidation of the paramilitary--and the Prime Minister, when he pledged no more violence after the agreement, included the beatings and the exile. The man in the street is living in a world where, since the Belfast agreement was signed, there have been 215 shootings and mutilations, 507 beatings, 2,579 families rehoused because of intimidation and 1,932 families exiled for ever overnight from their homes in Northern Ireland on the arbitrary decision not of the law but of the paramilitaries.
	Into that world a large number of killers have now been released. An alien government, the Irish Government, can, by agreement, intervene and claim the right to be consulted on how the police force of those Northern Ireland citizens should be recruited and run. That is very different from the existing and excellent co-operation between the Garda and the RUC. That Irish Government have presumed in the past to negotiate with Sinn Fein/IRA on reductions of our troops. That Government would like all issues of policing and justice to be devolved to a body, the Assembly, where the mortal enemies of that force, who openly wish to destroy it, are represented and have Ministers.
	Northern Ireland is full of victims, past and present, of the paramilitaries, many of whom, including members of the RUC and the reserves, received derisory compensation for often terrible injury.So far, the Government will not consider retrospective changes in compensation. Many of the pensions are derisory, too. Someone of the age of 21 will not have clocked up many pension years. However, I welcome what the Minister had to say about new developments on that front.
	I hope that we shall examine more closely in Committee exactly what the redundancy terms are to be for the many experienced RUC officers being offered voluntary retirement to make way for the presumed new intake of "persons treated as Catholics" to make up the required 50 per cent quota. What happens if that quota is not reached? Who does the work? I wonder whether noble Lords have considered sufficiently--if not, we must do so--how training will be carried out if too many experienced officers are lost too soon.
	Meanwhile, the man in the street sees that the Government so far have spent £12.5 million on the Bloody Sunday inquiry and estimate that a further £19.4 million will be needed in 2000-01. On the other hand, victims are to have £3 million over a two-year period and £1 million for a memorial fund. The European Union Peace Programme, interestingly, is giving £2.8 million to victim groups--very good--but £4.3 million to ex-prisoner groups. Therefore, the man in the street sees how the victims are valued.
	Meanwhile, many of those brave and experienced officers who have not done a bad job protecting the community from terror and have suffered while doing it--that includes many Catholic officers--are to retire to make way for an as yet unsecured quota of "persons to be treated as Catholics". It is generally recognised that what has prevented Roman Catholics from joining the RUC--although some brave men have--is intimidation, peer pressure, loss of contact with family and friends and the permanent threat to the lives of their families. That was the decision of the House of Commons Select Committee on the recruitment of the RUC. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what imposing a quota will do and yet more interesting to see whether Sinn Fein/IRA will allow anyone to seek to be a part of that quota.
	It is worth noting also that under Clause 45 both the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order and the Race Relations Act (Northern Ireland) will have to be amended or disregarded. When one looks at the RUC as a highly professional organisation which has already done so much to develop and change, it is clear that the issue is partly one of timing. It is simply that the time is not yet.
	The RUC has accepted much of this Bill and much of what it is trying to achieve. There is no doubt of its earnest wish to be a fully accepted force of law and order in a peaceful community and to prevent the paramilitaries from keeping their own arbitrary and brutal order. Incidentally, I find it extremely difficult to understand why the SDLP is not able to encourage people into the RUC. How does it expect things to change if that does not happen? Because of that, we must support the RUC's efforts to make things work.
	However, we must also make no more concessions that threaten its professional task. We must recognise that it takes two to tango. We must wait until the conditions of peace obtain before we take irrevocable steps. Unless and until Sinn Fein/IRA abandons its present uncompromising position and in its turn delivers the decommissioning without which there can be no peaceful, normal world, we must give no more ground and we must help the Secretary of State to call Sinn Fein/IRA's bluff whenever he needs to do so. He did it once with very good results. I should like to see it happen again from time to time. He is defending something vital, valuable and irreplaceable. In my view, the only acceptable reason for changes in the Bill at the behest of the nationalists is that they are acceptable, valuable and useful operationally and professionally and not for political reasons.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I say at the start how much I appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who spoke with his wealth of recent ministerial experience. I know that he had many contacts not only with farmers but also with policemen.
	Your Lordships will possibly have noticed from this evening's debate that there can be little doubt that Northern Ireland has been, and still is, a deeply divided society. The divisions relate to religious beliefs and to political aspirations. They are often so deeply entrenched as to affect individual and group perceptions of identity. In such a society, policing is almost bound to be a highly contentious issue.
	In considering the future of the police service, your Lordships' House is at a slight disadvantage. I say that because the nationalist Irish tradition is almost totally unrepresented here, whereas the Unionist Irish tradition is rather strong. That imbalance becomes somewhat greater when Unionists, sitting as Cross-Benchers, sometimes combine with Conservatives to present a case. That is why I should like--

Lord Laird: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is a pity that people of the nationalist tradition in Northern Ireland do not take up seats that are offered to them in the House of Lords?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord will encourage them to do so.

Lord Laird: But does the noble Lord agree with me?

Lord Hylton: Up to a point.
	I should like to make a double appeal, first to your Lordships and, secondly, indirectly to the two main political traditions in Northern Ireland. In considering the Bill, I trust that it will be possible to bear in mind the principles underlying the Belfast agreement: consent and the upholding of the human rights of the whole population. If we can always seek the common good of all, despite the many fears and distrusts that still exist, we shall make progress.
	Everyone needs the services of the police at some point in their life. They will be grateful when a missing child is rescued or help comes quickly after a car crash. Not everyone will be wholly satisfied, but we should seek solutions which meet real human needs and which try to maximise the win-win outcomes.
	It will be important to distinguish between the symbolic, identity-related issues, which are divisive by nature, and the practical issues, around which it should be possible to build consensus and common acceptance of a remodelled police service.
	Concerns have been expressed that the Bill waters down the recommendations of the Patten commission. I trust that the published implementation plan and the appointment of a distinguished and neutral oversight commissioner go some way to allay those concerns. Accountability will be a key principle of the future system, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has already explained clearly. It will be helpful in Committee to strengthen the powers of the police board and the ombudsman, particularly their powers of inquiry.
	I note the reorganisation of the police service in units corresponding with the existing district council areas. I trust that district police partnerships will build on the successes of local partnerships' dealings with the European Union's peace and reconciliation funds. The DPPs are likely to be crucial to the acceptance at local level of the new police service. For that reason, we shall have to look carefully in Committee at the proposed disqualifications in Schedule 3(8), which exclude from membership anyone who has ever received a prison sentence anywhere. The drafting seems to be contrary to the existing law on the rehabilitation of offenders. I know a number of ex-prisoners who do excellent work in a variety of community organisations. Others have been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly or to district councils. I am glad that the Northern Ireland Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders, of which I have the honour to be president, has already drafted an amendment, the text of which I can supply to Ministers, to mitigate that total bar.
	Local community restorative justice is outside the terms of the Bill, but it has already been successfully pioneered in Unionist and nationalist areas. I emphasise that it is not a replacement for police services, but rather a complement and supplement to them. It involves offenders and troublemakers, as well as those aggrieved or victimised. It enables damage to be repaired, restitution to be made for offences, and relationships to be healed. What is more, it often works much more quickly than traditional police and court procedures.
	I wish the Bill well. I am glad that there will be a long pause for reflection before the Committee stage. The Bill can and will be significantly improved. I repeat my earlier plea that we should examine it in the light of the common good of the whole of Northern Ireland. We should guard against any dilution of the Bill, remembering the advice of the Patten commission:
	"We counsel strongly against cherry-picking from the report, or trying to implement major elements in isolation from the others".

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, we have had in this debate some powerful and moving speeches from noble Lords who have lived all their lives in the Province of Northern Ireland. I thought long and hard about taking part in this debate at Second Reading of the Bill, as I have much less experience of the Province than almost all the contributors to the debate. However, although I have never lived in Northern Ireland, it has featured strongly in my past. My father was born in Belfast. Sadly, my memories of that beautiful part of the island of Ireland are not all joyous.
	Growing up in the south of the island of Ireland, I was always conscious that north of the Border there were stresses and strains of a nature that I was unable to comprehend. Listening to adults talking, I heard tales of bombings, arson attacks, people having to move to other parts of the United Kingdom or to the south. To an impressionable child, this was more than slightly frightening.
	That, of course, was a long time before the events of 1969. Many people do not realise that, to a greater or lesser extent, the troubles have been part of the island for almost the whole of the 20th century. Indeed, we have this evening heard a passionate speech about that fact from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. It was a very depressing speech, with almost no hope, and I can absolutely understand why. But now I want to believe that there is a real chance that the Province can and will be seen as the magical and peaceful place that it should and could be. This may seem utterly unrealistic, but please let us be hopeful. It requires genuine goodwill, a sense of repentance for past wrongdoings on all sides, and an attitude of change, encompassed by the words, "Today is the first day of the rest of our lives". This may be difficult; it is not impossible. I believe that the police in Northern Ireland can play an absolutely pivotal role in this regard.
	We all recognise that, rightly or wrongly, the police force in Northern Ireland has been perceived--and I stress the word "perceived"--as being aligned to one section of the community. This has to change. It is imperative that all sections of the community should regard the police force as utterly reliable, supportive of justice, fair and belonging to them.
	Living in the United Kingdom for the greater part of my life, the very presence of a policeman or a policewoman instils in me a sense of security. I instinctively know that they are there to protect me. It is my fervent wish that every inhabitant of Northern Ireland should feel the same. The police have to be seen to be a part of every section of the community. When they are, my wish will be well on the way to being granted, but there are no fairy godmothers to make it happen.
	As a committed Christian, I fundamentally believe that only through the working together of the separate members of the Christian churches can this happen. I am not, of course, excluding members of other faiths, or indeed of none. But the fact is that much the greater part of the current suspicion and latent (and not so latent) animosity in the Province derives from a conflict between the two main branches of the Christian Church. It is surely time for both to adopt a forward-looking approach and to support the police in such a way that their respective flocks will do likewise.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, called upon the Roman Catholic Church effectively to stand up and be counted. The power of the Roman Catholic Church is still massively influential in the nationalist community. It is in the potentially powerful position of being an overwhelming force for good, if it would enthusiastically encourage recruitment from its flock into the police.
	The generations of my father and grandfather have long since gone. There is a new, lively, world-aware generation in Northern Ireland which can be encouraged to think about the police as a real career opportunity--an opportunity not only for personal advancement but also an opportunity to do something for others. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church could be that encourager. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already referred to that.
	The Roman Catholic Church has rightly on occasions been vociferous in its condemnation of the past demeanours of the police. Now is the time to show Christian forgiveness, always remembering the stricture:
	"Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord",
	and to look ahead. The past is past; the future lies before us. Let us not allow the sins of the past to be visited time and time again. I have always believed that one must look to the past to acknowledge those sins; learn from them; and then, for everyone's sake, forget them. I sincerely hope that the Roman Catholic Church can feel able to give a lead in that.
	What must be avoided, of course, is an over-identification of one part of the Christian Church with an attempt to get the nationalist community to consider the police as a career choice. All church leaders--not just the cardinal, the archbishop and the bishops--should together take a stand to encourage all sections of the community to identify with the police and to see them as a respected, necessary and supportive band of people who can instil the feelings of security which I have already described.
	This month, we had the experience of seeing the leader of the Protestant Church, the noble Lord, Lord Eames, denouncing the attacks on the RUC at Drumcree. I just wonder why Cardinal Archbishop Brady did not do likewise. Perhaps he felt he could not support the noble Lord. What a pity that is. That would have send a powerful message to the whole community.
	I feel passionately that the answer to unblocking the history of years of suspicion and doubt lies with the recruitment of a much greater number of people from the nationalist community into the police force. It will be difficult to achieve that. I make a plea that quotas should not be employed. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, made the case against quotas. They are almost always a failure. One has only to look at the history of positive discrimination based on quotas for women in senior positions in the United States. That is not a happy story. Targets are a different matter and they should encourage new recruits who may not apply if they feel that they are merely part of the numbers game of quotas.
	Finally, I hope that the Roman Catholic Church will have the courage to encourage young people to aspire to a career in the police. This is truly a new beginning, a new chapter. Let us give it a chance.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I hope that the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, when passed, will have a great influence on the progress to a peaceful and law-abiding Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it has had a bad start. To drop the name "Royal Ulster Constabulary" has caused much hurt to the majority in both religions in Northern Ireland who have had a great regard and respect for the RUC and the steadfast manner in which it has for many years defended communities against the mindless attacks by the IRA.
	Over the past fortnight, the RUC has acted similarly against absurd attacks by so-called loyalists, who have sought to bring the Province to a standstill. More than 100 members of the RUC were injured by those so-called loyalists.
	This week there is also great concern about the early release of prisoners. Many, both IRA and loyalist, were convicted of the most horrendous crimes. They will all be released at the end of this week and it will be surprising if some of them at least do not return to what they do best.
	The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was quite right to emphasise the feeling of pain in the Province this week. There are few people who have not some connection with casualties or had relations and friends murdered during the Troubles. That early release of prisoners brings it all back. Unfortunately, the fact that we are no longer treated as part of the United Kingdom helps to promote that feeling among the pro-Unionist majority in Northern Ireland. The Government will do everything that Sinn Fein and the IRA ask, despite receiving nothing in return. It seems that we now have a joint authority for the government of Northern Ireland, with the Dublin Government having considerable influence on our affairs, which is most unhelpful. Of course, that is no way to treat citizens in the United Kingdom, but at the moment people feel pain and despair, which is not good. Note should be taken of that and steps should be taken to improve the situation.
	It is a credit to those who feel pain and despair that they know that violence is not the answer despite the fact that the Government have shown the IRA that it pays. I ask the Secretary of State to take care that he does nothing to make it more difficult for our First Minister or Deputy First Minister of the Executive. We desperately need local democracy in Northern Ireland and, without the Executive and the Assembly, the Good Friday agreement would soon unravel.
	I believe that it is ironic that by removing the name "RUC", the Government are in breach of the Good Friday agreement. Article 1, Section V requires full respect for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.
	This Bill assumes that the police service will work within communities at peace and it sets out in great detail how organisations and relationships will be set up. I believe that it is too early for that and I am glad that we have two months between now and Committee stage.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, spoke accurately and feelingly about the terrorist organisations that control areas, the so-called loyalist and IRA organisations. They are determined to retain control of those areas. First, the IRA has a political objective. Although officially there is a ceasefire, it is doing its utmost to ensure that it controls areas in order to prove that the Province is ungovernable. I see no sign that that attitude is changing.
	In addition, the financial rewards from racketeering and drug running are very attractive. Perhaps that says something about the difference between the IRA and the loyalist terrorists: loyalist terrorists control drug running themselves, but the IRA franchises it. The brutality of both paramilitaries makes it difficult for the police to obtain evidence to convict the criminals responsible. It may not be generally known that since April 1998, when the agreement was signed, six murders have been attributed to the IRA and 12 to the loyalists, and 87 shootings and mutilations have been attributed to the IRA and 128 to the loyalists. Beatings and hospitalisations are different and 281 are attributed to the IRA and 276 to the loyalists. The IRA have exiled 917 and the loyalists have exiled 1,015.
	Those horrendous figures have been collected by Vincent McKenna who works day and night for the Human Rights Commission. The figures are not known to the police because they do not hear of many of these instances. I forgot to mention the 2,579 families who have had to be rehoused elsewhere due to intimidation.
	Those figures indicate the scale on which the terrorist organisations on both sides control their districts. The first objective must be to overcome and break up those areas before proper peaceful policing can take place.
	I have been surprised that that situation has been ignored by the Northern Ireland Office. But I was pleased on Tuesday of this week when the Secretary of State spoke out about the menace of terrorists. It must be the first task for the police and the community generally.
	The Bill contains serious flaws. But they have been highlighted and well explained by other noble Lords. The 50/50 quota system is reverse discrimination, which is illegal in the UK. It is also unworkable for the reasons already explained. Whatever encouragement is given to Catholic young people to join the police, they will not want to join immediately for fear of being set upon by those committed to violence. So it is unlikely that 50 per cent of recruits will come from the Catholic quarter and therefore the number of recruits coming from other quarters must be reduced accordingly. The system is unworkable.
	If we have 29 district police partnerships in the form proposed in the Bill, we will in fact have 29 police services. I am sure that we need to work on that in Committee.
	I listened with great interest to the debate. We heard some excellent contributions from many noble Lords. But I humbly suggest that your Lordships' attention to the Committee stage of this Bill will be necessary. There is much work to be done on this Bill, as has been done on other Bills recently brought before this House.

Lord Eames: My Lords, the hour is late and great patience has been exhibited throughout the House. I shall therefore be as brief as I can.
	It was in 1964 that the then Attorney-General of the United States, the late Robert Kennedy, attempted to philosophise on the links between society and policing in a lecture to the American Bar Association. In the course of that lecture, he said:
	"Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on".
	Rarely has any legislation on policing before this House brought nearer the surface than at the present moment the connection between the society that the police seek to serve and the necessities of that police service. For we heard tonight vivid explanations of the problems of Northern Ireland, among which many of us live. We heard descriptions of how those problems arose and there have been many grave attempts in your Lordships' House to describe the solution.
	Perhaps I may be a little objective and ask the House to consider not just the past, but the future. I do not believe that a more sobering lesson comes out of the past 30 years for all of us in Northern Ireland than this: in relation to policing, what the whole of the community of Northern Ireland asked of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was more than any other police force could reasonably be asked to respond to, to exhibit or to carry out. I believe that the whole of the community asked of the police force what it was either unable or unwilling to solve itself. Time and again, stretched between the extremes of two divided communities, also subject day and night to the philosophy and sophistication of one of the most well-organised terrorist organisations in the world, is it any wonder that mistakes were occasionally made that should not have been made? But, in the cause of natural justice, is it any wonder that this House should put beside those mistakes a tale of intimidation, injury, murder and suffocation of rights, not only to policemen and women but also to their families?
	I speak with some feeling because, as many noble Lords will gather, most of my leadership has been exercised within that community. Until the day I die, I shall not forget my memories of the numerous funerals of policemen and women that I have had to conduct with my clergy. I have had to get to know the children who would grow up without a father and the young widows. Here I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, and to the Minister in this respect. I speak of a persistence with which I am very familiar because of the school that he attended; namely, the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, in relation to police widows. It will be excellent news for Northern Ireland when it is known that the noble and learned Lord has responded in the way that he has.
	I have also had to try to bring what I hope is Christian pastoral care to young adults who were, perhaps, aged about three or four when their father was taken from them simply because of the uniform that he wore. Therefore, is it any wonder that whenever I think back to those 30 years that have been referred to so often tonight, I have to say again--indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, reminded us some time ago--that, so often, the RUC was asked to do what the whole of society could not do? That must be borne in mind in as objective a way as possible when we consider this police Bill.
	Am I alone tonight in detecting something close to hypocrisy from any part of the community which claims loyalism, which claims allegiance to its dying breath to the British Crown, which wants to bring to the attention of the world the injustice of the removal of a badge or a name and, yet, is silent when the effigy of a policeman is burned in a bonfire; and when families of policemen who are on duty at Drumcree are chased out of their homes in the name of loyalism? The noble Baroness who spoke a few minutes ago was kind enough to refer to the actions that I took at Drumcree this year. There was quite a cost to pay. But I am absolutely convinced that the way forward is not the way of dragging the name of "loyalism", whatever way it is defined, into the muck and mire by actions such as those that I have described.
	Therefore, when people talk about the sacrifice paid by the Royal Ulster Constabulary over the past 30 years, I beg noble Lords to put that in its context; to put it into its human context, because they are real people. They have their own fears, their own financial worries and their own education problems for their children. We have asked the RUC--I include myself in this; indeed, I venture to suggest, all of us living in Northern Ireland are as guilty as I am--to do things that society either did not wish to do, or did not have the courage to achieve for itself. That is the police force. That is the police family that is under scrutiny in this House tonight and will be so, again, when we reach Committee stage.
	So what do we say about that? In preparation for this debate I talked extensively to Unionists and to nationalists and, yes, to republicans. I have talked to policemen of all ranks and ages; and, indeed, with all experiences. I have also spoken to police widows. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that the reactions were varied. However, I am convinced that a substantial number of current members of the police force in Northern Ireland would say, "We regret deeply and we feel hurt that we may lose our badge and our name, but we are professionals who have come through the fire and the fury of the past 30 years. We long to have the confidence of the whole community and to get on with a professional job for the good of that whole community". That is the test of the legislation before us. That poses the question that we should ask: does the legislation take us further down that road?
	There is also the question of the perception of the community. It is a divided community. A book was written not so long ago about the history of the RUC entitled A Force Under Fire--what an understatement! Many noble Lords may have read that book. In it Chris Ryder spoke vividly of the kind of emotional reaction that I have tried to describe tonight. He states that if there is a future for the current RUC in Northern Ireland, it is a future that will go forward through various stages of change. I thought of those words when one of the widows to whom I spoke last week said, "Of course, I want to see the police move forward, but please God, tell them in London to be careful as you walk on my memories".
	I believe that this past summer Northern Ireland has taken a turn for the better. That may sound strange in the light of the pessimism of which we have heard a little too much tonight. But I am conscious that, bad and dangerous though the situation has been this past summer, we have turned some kind of a corner. However, I beg Her Majesty's Government not to consider for one moment that we have reached the Utopia of lasting peace. As we saw at Drumcree earlier this month, there is still the threat of the paramilitary forces, and they are not all republican.
	I am sorry that a certain noble Baroness is not sitting on the Back Benches, for she would have spoken vividly to us tonight of the Shankill. We know that the intimidation that was exhibited in the Shankill among loyalist paramilitaries at the height of the Drumcree crisis has not gone away. We also know from the experience of RUC officers that the intimidation continues in many instances.
	As I have tried to illustrate, I have a personal reason for saying something about the experience of the police. I was disappointed when I read the Patten report. That sentiment has already been expressed this evening by several noble Lords. I did not expect Chris Patten to use colourful language in paying tribute to those who had died or been horribly injured in service; I just looked for recognition. But I am sorry to say that I did not find it. That is the reason that I paid tribute just now to the work of some noble Lords with regard to widows who have been dreadfully penalised.
	The Belfast Telegraph of 21st July stated:
	"We have far from arrived at the utopian situation whereby we can say terrorism is over evidenced by the displays of loyalist paramilitary strength this July, the continuing failure of the IRA to meet the requirements for decommissioning and the on-going threat of dissident republicanism".
	It is for that reason that I want to give voice at this moment--for they are not here to do it--to those who are not politically or party politically oriented in Northern Ireland; to the ordinary, decent majority of Protestants and Roman Catholic people who would say and beg with us, "Please do not reduce the level of protection or the sophistication of that protection until we can sleep in our beds in peace". I cannot say it more strongly. As I have said, I do not speak in a party political sense; I speak for those I know and work with.
	So much more has been said, and I shall not go over it again in what I want to say. The future Northern Ireland that so many of us pray for and work for with others is a Northern Ireland that is at peace with itself, at peace with its memories, at peace with its future, and, above all else, at peace without fear. But fear has not yet been removed from our Province and, as long as that maintains, we shall still look to the bravery of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to look after the society in which we live.
	I wish to put two questions to the Minister in relation to the legislation. He will forgive me if I dwell on them before I conclude. First, does the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill lead us towards those demands for which the ordinary people are asking--a peaceful society? Secondly, is our community prepared to play its part in what Robert Kennedy spoke of as the,
	"law enforcement it insists on"?
	As a Churchman dedicated to reconciliation and committed to what I can do myself with others towards gaining a just society for Northern Ireland, perhaps I may mention briefly two aspects of the Bill. I refer first to recruitment. On 25th July, Mr Mandelson, the Secretary of State, said in my own city of Armagh:
	"I am determined that the new Police Service of Northern Ireland, born out of and incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will mark a radical new beginning as the Patten report intended--the start of a journey which will lead to a service which will truly reflect Northern Ireland as a whole".
	I can understand the thinking which has gone into the way in which the Patten report has been produced and the thinking that Her Majesty's Government have put forward in this legislation, but after very much thought--I underline that--I have to ask Her Majesty's Government: is quota more important than targets to aim for? Have the Government duly and adequately considered the European legal situation in this regard? I am rusty on all this now; I simply mention it.
	I have seen the outline curriculum for training of the police service for the future. I am most impressed. It is enlightened, extensive and takes account of a pluralist society. I commend it.
	However, on a more practical level, perhaps I may refer to the remarks that have been made about the influence of the Church. One of the finest moments for me in regard to my colleague, Archbishop Sean Brady in Armagh, was when he walked with me on the lawn in Hillsborough the day that the George Cross was awarded to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It was an action of bravery and I pay tribute to him for it.
	But, as the noble Baroness reminded us, it is incumbent on all Church leaders in the society of Northern Ireland to ask about fundamental issues at this time; about what is their obligation in encouraging young men and women to join the police. Irrespective of its name; irrespective of its badge; irrespective of the society in which it serves; what is our Christian obligation in terms of community responsibility? I have no doubt what mine is. I simply say to my colleagues that they should think long and hard about what they can say.
	My second point relates to accountability. That is the key to the misfortunes and problems of the RUC over the years. I have to ask myself whether the present legislation contains the potential to improve police accountability in Northern Ireland. I have to ask her Majesty's Government whether they really are satisfied that the policing board, as described in the terms of the legislation, can operate as a strong, independent and fully accountable body which will benefit every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland, to say nothing of the police themselves. That will come up in Committee. I simply put the pointer down in the context of what I have been saying.
	Your Lordships have been very patient. I want to wind up my remarks. It was Kennedy who said:
	"every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on".
	Many of us in the House tonight live and work and pray for the future of Northern Ireland. It deserves the highest possible standard of policing which truly reflects each tradition of its population. It deserves police accountability which is above suspicion. It deserves a police force which maintains the highest professional standards. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that those standards were already being examined before the Patten report. But Northern Ireland must never again ask its police to solve problems it is itself unable or unwilling to face. We must never again, by our own indifference or failure, allow one more police life to be lost simply because we did not remove our own divisions.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I rise in trepidation to speak about Northern Ireland and its proposed new police service. I say "in trepidation" because I look at the gallery and galaxy of speakers in tonight's debate whose knowledge of Northern Ireland is unparalleled and way beyond my reach. I am very aware, as one of my noble colleagues kindly put it, that I am not one of the usual suspects on the Northern Ireland speaking list. Indeed, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if during this speech I make a mistake, like Ali G, of confusing the RUC with the RAC.
	But perhaps because I have no first-hand experience of living in or indeed of the policing of Northern Ireland, I can voice some of the thoughts of my fellow countrymen on the mainland--that absent majority who wish the people of Northern Ireland well but whose regular fare, as provided by the media, has been the diet of violence and mayhem of past years and more lately the scenes of politicians experiencing frustration in trying to implement the Good Friday agreement.
	Even my pre-conceived notions about Northern Ireland took a knock on my one and only visit to the Province. It was for me an inspiring experience and one about which I want to tell your Lordships. Three years ago, as an MEP and associated with the British presidency of the European Union, I attended a conference in Belfast dedicated to the welfare of children and young people in Europe. One evening, the conference done, I left my hotel--the appropriately named Hotel Europa, reputedly the most bombed hotel in Europe--and crossed the street to the bar opposite, a bar seemingly devoted to young people half my age and younger. Perhaps I should add here that Lady Harrison is fully aware of my nocturnal wanderings, especially in search of truth, enlightenment and Guinness.
	The bar was so crowded and so noisy that I could hardly hear myself order. Nevertheless, pint in hand, I fell into conversation with a young Protestant woman who doubtless pitied this grey-haired Englishman lost in Belfast. As we shouted at each other in conversation, she suddenly waved to a stranger across the crowded room. It was her boyfriend, a handsome Catholic lad who, she told me, was profoundly deaf. But--here is the rub, my Lords--she then conversed and communicated with her boyfriend using the sign language skills which she had picked up from her father, who worked with the hard of hearing.
	That is the marvellous paradox. These two young people, from the two different traditions in Northern Ireland, had found a language in which to speak to each other across the divide; across the clatter and chatter of this packed bar. For me, these star-crossed lovers represented a symbol of hope for a better future and a peaceful Northern Ireland.
	Our chance encounter concluded with her plea to me to tell my friends on the mainland that Northern Ireland's media image of guns and destruction was a distortion of the truth and failed to report the warmth and welcome of the people of Northern Ireland, something I myself experienced at first-hand. I promised her that I would fulfil her request. I have recounted that story of this Juliet and her Romeo in one parliament. I do it in a second tonight.
	The people of Northern Ireland need a police force, where all its citizens can go up to a policeman and ask the time; a police force which treats all its customers on a first come, first served basis; the kind of policing that we, on this side of the water, enjoy for the most part without giving the matter a second thought. At this point I place on record my profound awe and admiration of the job done by the RUC. No body of men or women could have traversed better the bitter 30 years of war that has riven the Province. The ultimate test of what I say is that I would not have had the courage to do what they have done. That their name should be enshrined in the title deeds of the PSNI is an unambiguous testament to that legacy. But out of the shell of such sacrifice and dedication must emerge something new and distinct; a modern police force in a modernising land. The pattern of change must be the Patten report; a police service which serves all its people; retains the confidence of all its people; and which, ultimately, in its make-up, reflects the diversity of its people and their traditions.
	The ambition to achieve 50/50 recruitment in the new police service will feature strongly in our debates at the Committee stage. I look forward with your Lordships to playing a part in improving the Bill, which has already undergone constructive refinement in its passage through another place. We will need to look at the question of accountability of the new force. I applaud the fact that it will be the most scrutinised force in Europe, but I do hope that, in fulfilling these democratic imperatives, the police will still have time to police.
	We will need to look at the role of the Secretary of State and his long-stop powers. I welcome the moves towards greater devolution. But we cannot absolve the Secretary of State from his responsibilities to the Treasury. The PSNI will be unique in the United Kingdom in being wholly funded by central government.
	I salute the work of the Secretary of State and his team for the sensitive and sensible way in which they have gone about the task of implementing Patten. But I want to use my last few minutes in highlighting one other set of challenges confronting the new police service of Northern Ireland which might otherwise go unremarked. The new force must be a modern police force in a changing Britain and a developing Europe. Indeed, in its engagement with the challenge of Europe, including the single market, the PSNI has the opportunity to become the market leader, to show the way for other police forces in Britain and Europe to follow.
	I shall explain. In the Belfast conference to which I alluded earlier, I was invited to speak on the subject of the safety of children in the single European market. It was thrilling to see Northern Ireland children visiting the conference mix and mingle with their contemporaries from across the European Union, but the police know only too well how vulnerable are children and their families in a world of greater travel, change and rootlessness. A cornerstone concept of the single European market is of course the free movement of people, which brings new challenges to our police forces across the European Union.
	The complementary concept of the free movement of goods also has implications for the police in the forms of smuggling, drugs and organised crime. Such challenges are particularly alive in Northern Ireland where such nefarious activities habitually use as cover the cloak of sectarian violence. The PSNI will need to be vigilant to new and intensified threats brought about by the deepening single European market and by the sweeping away of borders and barriers impeding the free flow of business, trade and commerce. In this, it will need to strengthen links, not only with the mainland police forces and the Garda, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dubs, but also with their continental counterparts.
	In 18 months' time the arrival of euro notes and coins will furnish new opportunities for fraud and deception to be practised on an unsuspecting public. After all, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which shares a land border with Euroland. The new police force must be ready for the currency counterfeiters.
	Inland tourism, an industry which grew by 27 per cent following the first ceasefire, and of great interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will require the protection of the police, guaranteeing the safety of foreign tourists who, incidentally, are likely to be the bearers of those self-same euro notes and coins.
	Inward investment from the European Union, in the wake of the European Union grants that have funded peace initiatives--those were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton--and economic reconstruction will continue to be secured for Northern Ireland only if there is a secure environment for such investment. The police are crucial to the economy. That cannot be said too often.
	The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the PSNI will be pivotal in fostering change. Indeed, it is likely that the police service of Northern Ireland will be pioneers in the United Kingdom and in Europe in this welcome development.
	Like others, I also foresee a leading role for retiring RUC officers to redirect their considerable skills, honed in the art of peacekeeping, in advising and participating with other continental police forces in the European Union and in NATO initiatives related to peacekeeping duties. The announcement made at the EU Lisbon Summit of the formation of a 5,000-strong EU peacekeeping police force may turn out to be the ideal vehicle for redirecting the skills and experience of RUC officers at the European level, while also abetting the task of equalising representation from the two traditions in the emerging PSNI. The putative EU police college for teaching serving officers may also be a new and welcome outlet for promoting change.
	Finally, I am struck by the ambition of the European Union to recognise that diversity is strength. Ever closer union is built on recognising the histories, traditions and cultures of Europe's many different nations and regions. Am I alone in hoping that Northern Ireland and, indeed, all the people on the island of Ireland, growing in an expanding Europe, may also take the opportunity to do things together which strengthen local communities, while continuing to acknowledge and, indeed, celebrate the cultural diversity which is their inherent strength?
	The new police service in Northern Ireland will be instrumental in bringing about that wished-for change by being truly a police force by the people, for the people and, indeed, of the people.

Lord Monson: My Lords, in contrast, I fear, to the two previous speakers, perhaps I may start on a slightly grating note by echoing the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I am not blaming any individuals, but it is somehow symbolic of the subconscious patronising attitude of metropolitan England towards Northern Ireland--I am not just thinking of the Guardian newspaper--that the debate on this extremely important Bill did not start until half-past six on virtually the last day of the term and was scheduled to follow mini-debates on what, objectively, were much less important topics. The result was that two or three distinguished noble Lords have had to scratch. I had a rather more relaxing engagement lined up for this evening and had not intended to speak--until I looked at the provisional list of speakers some days ago. It has since changed, but then there were extremely few English, Welsh or Scottish speakers on the list. I thought it vital that there should be at least one more representative from the rest of the United Kingdom to pay tribute to the brave men and women of the RUC and to deplore the effective consignment to history of that admirable institution.
	The deplorable aspects of the Bill--I readily concede that it has a number of good points--have their origin in the Patten report. My views on the report would not be fit for your Lordships' tender ears. I was interested, when going through my files this morning, to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had the same reaction when she first saw it. But what can one expect, given the composition of the committee?
	Can one imagine the French--a people who have pride in their nation and its institutions--contemplating for one single second allowing the Americans and the Italians to help dictate the future composition of the Corsican police force? As for the idea of the Americans allowing foreigners to reform the New York City or Los Angeles police forces, the mind boggles!
	Of course, the Patten report is a fait accompli and, as such, cannot be ignored. But despite what republicans both north and south of the Border claim, no British Government are legally or by convention under any obligation to accept the recommendations of a Royal Commission or any other sort of commission set up by government in full or with only a few technical amendments.
	But the Government have gone even further than the Patten report in claiming that intimidation by the IRA and INLA plays only a subsidiary role in the reluctance of Catholics to joint the RUC. Frankly, that claim will not stand up. Just as hundreds of mainly Catholic members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were murdered, wounded and driven permanently from their homes by the IRA throughout Ireland 80 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, reminded us, so in the past 30 years intimidation has played a major role in deterring Roman Catholics from enlisting in the RUC.
	Moreover--and this is highly significant--an opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph earlier this year (one of several polls which produced similar results) revealed that only 31 per cent of Roman Catholics found the RUC name and identity to be offensive. In other words, all the proposed hurtful changes to the name, badge and other symbols are designed to placate a mere 12 to 13 per cent of the population of the Province (those with strong republican traditions), totally ignoring the feelings of the 87 to 88 per cent who either positively want the status quo or at least are comfortable with it. In proportional terms, the 87 to 88 per cent whose feelings are ignored are equivalent to the population of apartheid South Africa 10 years ago who were black, coloured or Asian. In the same way, the views of the 13 per cent prevailed over the majority, which is an interesting statistic to ponder.
	There are other worrying aspects of the Bill, many of which were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and others. A most interesting article by Eamonn McCann, who is not a Unionist of any description, appeared in yesterday's edition of the Independent. That article rather reinforces some of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. Mr McCann deplores the way in which government policy is, perhaps unwittingly, reinforcing sectarianism:
	"The Belfast Agreement isn't a device for ending communal hostility, but for the more efficient management of it. It doesn't invite people to come together but promises to police them apart. The agreement ... condemns us to communal existence for as far forward as it is possible to see ... Never in the history of Ulster ... has the 'tribal' basis of our politics been so frankly acknowledged and arrangements put in place for its perpetuation".
	For all its doubtless good intentions, I fear that the effects of this Bill, unless heavily amended, may simply reinforce that dangerous trend.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I hope that, despite the lateness of the hour, I may have leave to speak briefly in the gap. I had hoped to speak earlier but, to my great regret, duties connected with the call of students to the Bar in Middle Temple tonight made it absolutely obligatory for me to be there. I had very much feared that my perceived silence in this Second Reading might be taken as indifference on my part to the future of the RUC. That is the last thing that I want because I owe the RUC far too much for that.
	Tonight there is time for me to express only one thought, save to add my expression of immense gratitude at having had the opportunity to listen to many fine speeches in this debate. My principal hope is that whatever police service, under whatever name, emerges from this legislation it will none the less permit those who serve in it to find the motivation to be as professional, fair and brave as the RUC that I had the privilege to know.
	I am sure that your Lordships will vividly remember the photographs--if your Lordships did not see it in the flesh--of the pageant in celebration of the centenary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Noble Lords may also recall a little earlier the sight of an RUC police constable receiving the George Cross. That police constable, Paul Slane, is known to me. Shortly before I arrived in the Province in 1992 he had lost both legs and sustained a severe injury to one arm. His companion female officer had been murdered beside him. After that I saw him in church frequently at Hillsborough--he was my neighbour--and I never forgot him. For me, he epitomises the courage of the RUC and the cost of its George Cross. I was deeply touched to receive a Christmas card from him last year. That is the kind of memory that we must keep well in mind as we focus in greater detail, as we shall, upon the detail of the Bill.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this has been a truly memorable debate in the tradition of debates on Northern Ireland. It has been blessed with some wonderful speeches, in particular that of the noble Lord, the Archbishop of Armagh, who reminded of us of the Christian principles involved in our thinking for the future and as regards the past.
	It is not one of the most pleasant Bills I have had to deal with; in fact rather the opposite. However, the Government's handling of it has been appalling when one considers how many people's lives and emotions the Bill will touch. It might interest noble Lords to be reminded that the Patten report was published on 9th September 1999. On 11th July, last week, the Bill went to the Commons for Report stage and Third Reading. At that stage the Government, in their wisdom, thought fit to guillotine the Bill. That guillotine meant that only three people were able to speak at Third Reading. That excluded the First Minister for Northern Ireland.
	Important government amendments were tabled in another place. Because of the guillotine they were not debated. We do not know whether the Government intend to reintroduce them. The Bill has not had a proper examination in another place. It is, therefore, difficult to know the Government's position on the Bill.
	The Bill comes to your Lordships' House at the end of the last week before the Summer Recess, which is always a long and difficult week in the parliamentary calendar. We had this afternoon a two-hour debate about files and office space. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, passed me a note during that debate which said,
	"Filing cabinets (this debate)
	v. Lives (next debate)!!" That sums up the situation.
	I have been upset considerably by other matters which have come to my attention regarding the Bill. It might interest noble Lords to know that during the Committee stage in another place a delegate from the Irish Government, an official well known in this Palace, was in the gallery. The PPS to the Secretary of State was seen regularly to be discussing amendments with the member of the Irish Government. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. What right, I ask your Lordships, do the Dublin Government have to be directly involved in a Committee stage in this Palace of a Bill about Northern Ireland?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In view of the great importance of cross-Border co-operation for security, trade, tourism and almost any subject you like, I fail to see the impropriety of what he describes.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord fails to see it. I do not understand the connection between trade and the other issues to which he refers and the name, the hat badge or the recruiting figures of the RUC, or the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	My view is that where we are today, post the Good Friday agreement, is not where we would like to be. I believe that we have had far too much appeasement and far too big a part has been played by the Irish Government. The noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Rogan, mentioned that today.
	Many issues have been raised which I hope will be the subject of amendments. Many noble Lords discussed quota versus target. When looking at the Bill and its proposals for the Northern Ireland police force, or the RUC, one must be realistic and look at the climate. Many noble Lords have said that they agree with much of the content of the Bill and the Patten report. However, in several places the report specified certain necessary timings; that certain situations had to prevail.
	As was made clear by many noble Lords today, we do not have bombs and bullets in this country but we still have them in Northern Ireland. They are not apparently PIRA but the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and others. We have terrorism, whether we like it or not, but worse--we are talking about a Northern Ireland police force having to police what is probably the most difficult part of the UK to police, and not only because of the religious divides. There are serious turf wars between groups of paramilitaries, or former paramilitaries, and there are serious drug smuggling and fraud problems. In fact, there is every kind of crime in a small community. It has been said several times today that there are still no-go areas for the police force. That is one aspect of the climate.
	A second aspect of the climate is that members of the communities want to be policed, want peace and believe in the Good Friday agreement but now, sadly, are frightened to join the force. Many noble Lords have said that the problems of balancing the police force with different parts of the community is not an unwillingness to join but the fact that people are frightened to join. But they have to join in order that change can take place.
	We all believe in community policing. We would like to feel that the local constable was our friend. But if members of the communities in West Belfast are not allowed--I might go so far as to say are forbidden--to join the police force by their church and by the leaders, possibly being threatened with death or expulsion, how do we break the circle? We are setting a quota or target for a new police force, which is the same one but under a different name, with a different shape and guise and probably lower morale. Who knows how it will work out? That is the environment in respect of which we are passing this Bill. Noble Lords must take that on board.
	As regards policing, terrorists on both sides, and in particular the republican terrorists at the time of the Good Friday agreement, had only one objective; that was to get rid of the police force in order to give them more freedom to move. There is little doubt about that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, talked about policing in York. Clearly she has some expertise in that field. I hope that we shall hear more from her and have closer arguments in Committee when we try to improve the Bill.
	As I believe was made clear by my noble friend Lady Seccombe, this party supports the Bill but does not support it in its present state. There are certain key areas on which we must concentrate. Most of them have been raised by noble Lords around the House. We have discussed timing and recruiting. With regard to the name of the police service, I should like the Minister to give us an undertaking as to where Clause 1 stands; that is, whether the Government intend to amend it further, as put forward and then withdrawn in the Commons. I hope that Clause 1 will be allowed to remain and that "operational" will not be more clearly defined than it is at the moment elsewhere in the Bill.
	A number of points have been made with regard to the DPPs--the district policing partnerships. This party is absolutely determined that those who have a prison or police record should not be allowed to sit on the DPPs, whether they are from political parties or privately elected. The same applies to the policing board. We hope that the Government will not proceed with giving the DPPs more powers or the right to raise taxes in order to pay for external policing.
	It has been a long debate. I fear that this has not been one of the greatest summing-up speeches in a debate in your Lordships' House. However, as I read my notes, I see that most of the points that I had intended to raise have been covered from all sides of the House. I merely suggest to the Minister that there is much to be done between now and the Committee stage. I hope that in Committee the Government will come forward with amendments on the various parts of the Bill that we have discussed; in particular, the name, the DPPs, the membership of the partnership boards and the structure of the management of the new police service.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that this has been a most impressive debate. It has been extremely informative and has, I believe, contained speeches of real power. It has indicated clear areas of concern in relation to the Bill to which no doubt we shall return in Committee. However, I believe that it is also fully recognised that the Bill contains many important building blocks for policing changes for which there appears to be widespread support on every side of the House.
	Without doubt, one thing that came out loud and clear throughout the debate was the universal recognition of the sacrifice made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and by the relatives and families of its members. I hope that I made it clear in my opening remarks that the Government explicitly associate themselves with that recognition.
	It was hard not to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Eames, the Archbishop of Armagh, who spoke openly and honestly about his relationship with members and former members of the RUC and their families.
	It would not be wise or sensible for me to go through every point that has been raised in detail, but I should like to pick up on some of the main points and concerns to set a framework for our debates on subsequent stages.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and the noble Lord, Lord Eames, all urged us not to introduce the Bill too quickly and to have regard to the security situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that this does not need saying, but I assure the House that the Government take very seriously our responsibility to protect the people of Northern Ireland. We shall not shirk that responsibility.
	Moreover, I reassure the House that we agree with Patten's recognition that a number of his recommendations would require an enabling security environment before they could be implemented. That is why we have specifically recognised in the implementation plan that a number of recommendations, including many of the specific ones mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, cannot be taken forward yet. The Secretary of State gave many assurances in another place that the Government would take and accept the advice of the chief constable on the timing of the implementation of those recommendations. I repeat those assurances.
	The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, made a similar point, with a heartfelt plea that the counter-terrorist capability of the police in Northern Ireland should not be impaired. That was supported by many noble Lords. The Government will not expose the people of Northern Ireland to any risk from terrorist violence. There is an acceptance and acknowledgement in the Belfast agreement that the police service in Northern Ireland:
	"must be capable of maintaining law and order including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat and to public order problems. A police service which cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance".
	The Government entirely agree with that. We will not run risks with people's lives. We will ensure that the police service is as capable of dealing with the problem of terrorism as with all other types of crime.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, raised the operational independence of the chief constable. We believe that the powers of the policing board do not detract from that. As Patten said:
	"Neither the Policing Board nor the Secretary of State ... should have the power to direct the Chief Constable as to how to exercise those functions".
	The Government have therefore provided in Clause 33 that the police shall be under the direction and control of the chief constable. That meets the concerns of the noble Baroness.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eames, raised a slightly different point about the policing board. He said that accountability was the key. Looking at the issue from the other end of the telescope, he asked whether the board had sufficient powers. The Government have sought to implement Patten, including creating a new policing board that, as Patten said, is
	"empowered and equipped to scrutinise the performance of the police effectively".
	In another place, we accepted some changes to the powers that improved the Bill. Other powers, such as those on best value and inquiry, will be subject to further change in Committee in this House. We are determined to ensure that the board has the powers that it needs and that the operational independence of the chief constable is not unreasonably interfered with.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, expressed concern about the membership of the board and also of the district policing partnerships. We think that it is important to recognise that the Government have included safeguards in relation to that, where these are appropriate. But the Bill is about inclusivity. We have to move forward. We have to accept the democratic wishes of the people. That is why Patten recommended the involvement of elected representatives. In doing so, he was reflecting his terms of reference as set out in the Good Friday agreement, which was overwhelmingly supported by the people of Northern Ireland and which states that there should be,
	"clearly established arrangements enabling ... political representatives, to articulate their views and concerns about policing and to establish publicly policing priorities and influence policing policies ...".
	On the appointment of the independents, I am aware particularly of concern in this area as regards district policing partnerships. In that respect, however, there are sensible and proportionate safeguards in the Bill--for example, disqualification and removal provisions and the ability of the Secretary of State to issue a code on appointments.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, raised in respect of the policing board--

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister reply directly to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about whether people with a terrorist record would be excluded from the local police boards, the DPPs? Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether, if a man with no previous convictions for football hooliganism can be deprived of his passport merely on the grounds of intelligence, could not people also be excluded from such boards merely on the grounds of intelligence background.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister replies, will he bear in mind the number of completely reformed ex-terrorists?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was about to come to the specific question that has been asked. I will answer it in the order of my speech and deal also with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The question goes to the point about the policing board.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, raised the question of best value. The provisions are technically very complex. We intend that the policing board should take the lead on best value and that the Secretary of State should intervene only in the event of default. However we will bring forward some amendments in Committee to try to clarify that position.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, also raised issues about the power of inquiry and the obligation of the board to pay the costs of such an inquiry. The Government have accepted that the safeguards originally put on the board's exercise of the power were too great. As I said earlier, we will table amendments building on those already made in another place. We believe that the board should, as a matter of proper financial accountability, be responsible for meeting the costs of an inquiry. If the board finds that it needs additional funds, it can, of course bid for them.
	Particular issues were raised by the noble Baroness on financial accountability arrangements. I think it would be much more appropriate to deal with those in Committee rather than now. Similarly, I shall deal in Committee with the point about the code of ethics.
	Many noble Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Laird, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Eames, raised problems in relation to 50/50 recruitment. The questions related to a variety of points but they were to a large extent points along the lines of, "Do not have reverse discrimination, simply have a target" or, alternatively, "This is not practicably enforceable".
	The Government's aim, and the aim set out in the Good Friday agreement, which said that the police service should be representative of the society that it polices, is to have a police service which is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
	It is acknowledged by all that the current composition of the RUC is unbalanced. Only 8 per cent of its officers are Roman Catholic. Affirmative action, or targets, would take too long. The Police Federation has calculated that it will take 30 years to achieve a balance through affirmative action alone. We want all community leaders to encourage people to join the police, as Patten recommended, but we are aiming for a combined impact to bring about a sharp upturn in Catholic representation in the short term.
	Patten records in his report the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission that it is not enough to have a few Catholic recruits entering the service. As long as the figure is less than 15 per cent, they will never have a substantial influence on its culture. That is why the methodology that the Bill has adopted has been adopted.
	We are quite satisfied that the provisions that we put forward are in accordance with the law, both in relation to European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
	I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, as to whether a terrorist record will mean exclusion from the board. Where a person has been sentenced to imprisonment, he will be excluded. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, approached the issue from a different direction. I should tell him that we do not believe that the time is right at the moment to relax those provisions which exist at present in the Bill.
	A number of speakers--the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Park of Monmouth--said that they thought the problem would not be solved by quotas because it is intimidation and threats of murder which prevent Catholics from joining the RUC.
	Intimidation is undoubtedly one important fact. We want to see an immediate end to that. But there are other factors which include a lack of identity with the RUC; fear of loss of contact with family and community; and lack of encouragement from community leaders. The Government encourage all community leaders to remove barriers to those wishing to join the police. They believe also that the technique adopted in the Bill is something which will make a real difference to the composition of the police force.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, gave the House his picture of what Northern Ireland is like at the moment. He gave a rather gloomy picture. I took the noble Lord, Lord Eames, to disagree with that. He said that he thought, despite what we may have read in the papers, that there is a turn for the better in Northern Ireland.

Lord Eames: My Lords, if I gave the impression that the turn for the better this year was something which changed all the problems that we are facing, then I overstated my case. I was simply saying that I was hopeful that this summer, we had seen a turn for the better. But the description which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, gave of some of the problems which we face is the real reason that I went on to say to the House that I felt that we should not be allowed to rush the reforms which would in any way reduce the protection which law-abiding citizens have from the police service. I should like to correct that, if that is the impression which I gave.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I certainly was not seeking to overstate what the noble Lord said about the turn for the better. Without in any way overstating the position, I took the noble Lord to say that there are signs that things are getting better.
	The particular point on which I take issue, with great diffidence, with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is his description of the sense that the men of violence were winning. That is not the sense at all that we should wish to think is right. We believe that normality is returning to Northern Ireland. It is not as quick as everybody would like but we should not ignore the fact that there are signs of progress and that progress is being made.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, also raised the issue of decommissioning and the status of the ceasefires. As my right honourable friend in another place constantly makes clear, he keeps the status of all ceasefires under continual review. He will not hesitate to act against any organisation not observing a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. He receives regular briefings on the security situation from the chief constable and senior security advisers.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does that mean that the statistics which I quoted and, indeed, statistics which other noble Lords quoted do not represent a breach of the ceasefire?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not seeking in any way to challenge the statistics. I do not know whether they are right or wrong. I have not had an opportunity to check them.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, they are from the RUC website.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity to check them. I obviously accept what the noble Viscount says, that they come from the RUC website. The particular issue with which I take issue is the picture that the men of violence are winning and that no progress is being made towards a more peaceful society. Progress is being made, not as quickly as everyone would like, but there is progress.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether the regulations under Clause 44, which deals with recruitment, and Clause 52, which deals with flags and emblems, would be available at Committee stage. A draft of those on recruitment will be available; those on flags and emblems are dependent on the outcome of the consultation with the policing board, therefore they will not be available before the Committee stage.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan--"complained" may be the wrong word--drew attention to what he described as the "Balkanisation" of the police service. With respect to the noble Lord, he is seeking to substitute his own judgment for the professional policing judgment of the chief constable. The chief constable supports the creation of district commands, as recommended by Patten. I believe that that idea originated from the chief constable's own review of the policing service. He supports the removal of the regional tier and he supports the four police commands proposed for Belfast as operationally necessary. So, with apologies, the Government will not follow the approach of the noble Lord. I can reassure the House that the police service will remain a single unified police service. There is no basis for claiming that those changes are about the "Balkanisation" of the police service.
	The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in a moving and effective speech, referred in particular to the prisoner releases that have been in the news this week. Of course, I understand why the releases that took place earlier in the week and those that will take place tomorrow are difficult for many to accept. However, I believe that prisoner releases remain an essential part of the Good Friday agreement, without which a settlement would not have been possible. They were endorsed by the people of Ireland, north and south, not because they want to see prisoners go free, but because they realise the need to move on and to put the violence of the past behind them.
	Time is moving on and it would be wrong for me to deal with each individual point. I am sorry that I have not dealt with every single point raised by noble Lords, nor dealt with the speech of every noble Lord. Perhaps I can return to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eames. He asked two rather powerful and pertinent questions: does the Bill help us to move towards a peaceful society and is the community prepared to play its part? We believe that the Bill takes us towards a peaceful society by laying the foundations for the new beginning to policing called for in the Good Friday agreement. The Bill lays the foundations for a police service that is representative of the whole community and which commands the support of the whole community. I cannot quote the exact words, but that reflects the description of what the noble Lord, Lord Eames, said that the RUC wanted.
	On the second question, I strongly believe that the community is prepared to play its part in policing in Northern Ireland. Through the Bill and through the implementation of the other elements of the Patten report, we have a unique opportunity to create a situation where, for the first time ever, all parts of the community in Northern Ireland are prepared to play their part.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that he will answer the questions that naturally he has been unable to take the time to answer now, not in papers in the Library, as many of us will not come over from Northern Ireland or elsewhere during the Recess, but in writing to us?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, certainly I shall write to the home addresses of noble Lords. I shall also put the answers in the Library. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Business

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before the Minister moves the next Motion, perhaps the House will allow me to intervene. I could move for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 43, but I am reluctant to do so. As a substitute, perhaps I may make a gentle plea to the Government Chief Whip, who I know is the most reasonable of men.
	We have had an extremely long day. It is very nearly 11 o'clock at night. We are about to consider a highly controversial piece of legislation. It is perhaps a small piece of legislation but it has important constitutional implications. I suggest that it was always odd that we should be asked to consider, rather suddenly, this particular piece of legislation on the penultimate day before rising for the Summer Recess. It is even more curious that the Government appear to be insisting that, at this late hour on this penultimate day, we should pursue this business.
	Does the Chief Whip agree with me that there do not appear to be a large number of Members of the Dail queuing up to become Members of another place between now and 27th September? Would it not be much more reasonable to suggest through the usual channels that we consider the Second Reading of this piece of legislation after allowing other Members of this House, who have probably sensibly gone off on holiday by now, to look at it and consider it with more care? That would also enable us to get home a little earlier this evening.
	What is the hurry for this Bill? I hope that the Chief Whip realises that I say this in a conciliatory frame of mind. I am sure that the House will forgive me for raising the matter now. If the Chief Whip saw the good sense of my argument, the time of the House that I have taken this evening would in fact save us time in the end.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support what the noble Viscount has said. It may be that the Chief Whip and the Government Front Bench are not aware of the fact that the Bill completed all of its stages in the other place on 26th January, so if they have not been in any hurry over the past six months, why are we rushing now when we shall have ample time to consider it later? We could give an undertaking not to oppose the Bill at any great length if it could be fitted in even on the first day back.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. There was certainly no intention that the Bill should start at this hour. Your Lordships know what happened today. We spent one and a half hours on a debate which did not add to the dignity of this House. Anybody watching that debate would not feel that it added to the lustre of the House or to the dignity of our debates. I shall make sure that a number of noble Lords who took part in that debate are made aware of the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Eames, in relation to the contrast between filing cabinets and lives.
	I have to choose my words with great care. I was asked within the past 10 days if I would ensure that this Bill received a Second Reading before the Summer Recess. I ask your Lordships not to press me on that. It involves the situation in Northern Ireland. Therefore I found space for it. It was agreed through the usual channels that it should be taken this evening.
	The only thing I can do--this may not suit your Lordships because everyone is here to debate the Bill--is put it on tomorrow after the Finance Bill, if it is felt that that is better than starting it now. I was very concerned this afternoon when the earlier debate took place. I made arrangements through the Clerk of the Parliaments and Hansard to make sure that the House could handle the reporting and so forth of the Bill.
	Everyone is here to debate the Bill. I am sorry about what has happened. It is not really my fault. There is no way that I could ever have anticipated--I doubt whether the noble Viscount as Leader of the House could have done so either--that a debate of one hour and 40 minutes would take place on the Offices Committee report. For all those reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press me.
	I was asked last week by colleagues whether I could ensure, as part of the choreography of the situation in Northern Ireland, that this Bill received its Second Reading before the Summer Recess. I undertook to do that. The only offer I can make is to put it on tomorrow after the Finance Bill. But as your Lordships are all here and probably will not want to come back tomorrow, I feel that we should continue with the Bill this evening.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Chief Whip sits down, is it not contrary to our normal procedures to continue sitting after 11 p.m. on a Thursday when we are sitting at 11 a.m. on a Friday?

Lord Carter: My Lords, that is a convenience and a convention regarding the staff. This can be done, as long as arrangements are made; I was careful to do this through the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Editor of Hansard. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the House sat until 5.10 a.m. on Tuesday morning and resumed at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon.

Disqualifications Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
	This Bill removes the last major inconsistency in the way in which UK electoral regulations apply to Commonwealth nations and to Ireland. It achieves this purpose in Clause 1 by amending the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. These amendments will allow Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament to serve as Members of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, to which the disqualification provisions set out in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 apply, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, where the relevant provisions are in the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
	Clause 2 of the Bill will prohibit Ministers of the Irish Parliament from taking up ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Likewise, any Minister, junior Minister, First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be prohibited from a ministerial position in the Irish Government.
	The Bill involves a limited extension of existing provisions under which Members of a number of legislatures outside the UK can already take seats in the House of Commons. It extends a provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 under which Members of the Irish Senate--the Upper House of the Irish Parliament--can take seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill does not establish any new principle or introduce major constitutional change, and it will not have any effect on the membership of this Chamber.
	Perhaps I may explain the background in relation to the current provisions. For many years Irish citizens within the UK have enjoyed many of the same rights as Commonwealth citizens. Both Commonwealth citizens and Irish nationals have long been able to stand for and vote in elections for the House of Commons. But one significant difference in their treatment has remained. Under the current law, Members of Commonwealth legislatures, unlike Members of foreign legislatures, can take seats in the House of Commons. But Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament cannot, even though all other Irish citizens can. I give way.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is explaining the asymmetry between provision for Commonwealth countries and Ireland. But what is the pressure for this measure? Who wants this? Indeed, why is this Bill necessary? It is a complete mystery. Who on earth wants this to happen?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we believe this to be sensible step that will help the process. I am trying to explain why we are doing it now and the nature of the Bill's purpose.
	The Bill will remove the inconsistency that I have just mentioned. It will enable Members of the Irish legislature to stand for election to the House of Commons and the UK devolved legislatures, thereby giving them equal treatment with the Members of Commonwealth legislatures and the same rights as other non-elected Irish citizens.
	The Northern Ireland Act 1998--

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but perhaps the Minister could answer this question. If Mr Gerry Adams were to be elected to the Dail, as I believe is extremely likely, would he then be able to take his seat in the House of Commons, despite the fact that he has always refused to take the Oath? Would this measure allow him to do so?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords; it would not. This Bill will simply get rid of an existing disqualification that would have prevented him standing.
	The Northern Ireland Act 1998 already went some way to address this situation. Section 36(5) provides that a Member of the Irish Senate--a body that is partly appointed and partly elected from sectoral constituencies--may take a seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill builds on that provision, which as a result can now be repealed by Clause 3. The Bill extends that provision, first, to the other place and to the UK devolved legislatures, so that Northern Ireland is not singled out for special treatment; and, secondly, to members of the Dail, the Irish Lower House.
	By placing all Members of the Irish legislature on the same footing as Members of Commonwealth legislatures, the Bill rightly reflects the strength of the relationship that exists between our two nations. Furthermore, it is in line with the special position long recognised for Irish citizens in our electoral arrangements. It would now be out of step with the transformed political landscape in Northern Ireland and in relations between our two countries not to take the measures we are proposing. In particular, it is the establishment of the new institutions provided for in the Good Friday agreement which makes this measure timely now.
	When devolution and the other new institutions--

Lord Laird: My Lords, is the provision for this mentioned in the Good Friday agreement?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not.
	When devolution and the other new institutions came into force on 2nd December last year, the Irish Government also repealed the longstanding territorial claim over Northern Ireland in Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. This makes clear that a united Ireland can only be achieved with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. With the principle of consent at the heart of the new constitutional settlement, there is a solid basis for a close relationship between our two countries and the principles within it.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive my ignorance, but will a Member of the House of Commons be able to stand for election to the Dail as well?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, but that is a matter for southern Irish law and not a matter for this Bill.
	This Bill is just one example of that close relationship. While itself not a commitment in the Good Friday agreement, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, it is consistent with it.
	The Good Friday agreement has given new shape to the British-Irish relationship and created a new architecture of institutional links throughout these islands; links that respect the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom but provide a framework for practical co-operation between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Government through the North-South Ministerial Council and in the British Irish Council between all of the UK devolved administrations and the British and Irish Governments. These arrangements recognise and build on the very special relationship that exists between the people of Britain and Ireland.
	This closeness has been further illustrated by the way in which the British and Irish Governments have worked together since the devolved institutions were suspended on 11th February to their restoration on 29th May. I am convinced that we would not have got the process back on track so soon had it not been for the way in which our two governments have co-operated and persevered together, and on all levels.
	I recognise that there may be some concerns about conflicts of interest. I do not believe that the holding of dual electoral mandates in itself necessarily represents a conflict of interest or makes it impossible for such elected representatives to carry out their duties effectively. It may do, but that must be for the electorate to decide and we should be wary of stepping in to pre-empt their decision.
	I accept that the situation of Ministers taking executive decisions is different from that of Back-Benchers participating in two different legislatures. Ministers must be in a position to take into account the best interests of those in the jurisdiction they are governing and must be seen to do so. That may not always be obvious if a Minister is also a Minister in another sovereign country. Whether or not conflicts of interest actually arise, it is important to avoid any perception that such conflicts could exist.
	That is why Clause 2 of the Bill prohibits Ministers of the Irish Government from taking up ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In addition, it states that a Minister, junior Minister, First Minister or Deputy First Minister of the Assembly would have to resign their position in the Assembly executive upon becoming a Minister of the Irish Government.
	In conclusion, as is right for a Bill affecting the membership of the House of Commons, it was extensively debated in the other place. In total, some 27 hours were devoted to it on the Floor of the House of Commons, including one overnight sitting. So I hope that noble Lords will accept that it has been extensively and carefully scrutinised by the Chamber which will be affected by it. As I have said, this Bill does not, of course, affect the membership of this House.
	It is a modest Bill. It does not make any dramatic changes. It simply extends to the Irish legislature existing provisions which already permit Members of a number of legislatures outside the UK to take seats in the House of Commons. It builds on the existing provision allowing Members of the Irish Senate to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly and extends this to the House of Commons and the UK devolved legislatures and to Members of the Irish Dail.
	It is a further example of the development of mutually beneficial relationships between our two countries and throughout these islands, relationships which are now based firmly on the principle of consent. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Rogan: My Lords, as I was preparing to speak to the Disqualifications Bill I was puzzled. I am even more puzzled by the remarks of the Government Chief Whip as he pleaded--that is the correct word--that the debate take place tonight. Why in the past 10 days was he asked to ensure that the Bill was read a second time before the Recess? Why was it so important to so do? What did he mean when he said it affected the current choreography in Northern Ireland? Why the urgency? Who is applying the pressure? Why the sudden speed?
	I do not take the opinion that this is a modest Bill; I do not take the opinion that this is a minor Bill. It has a fundamental application and effect on the constitution. It is curious to find the Bill before us at this time. As has been mentioned, it was last debated in another place in January of this year, more than six months ago. Questions were asked in another place at that time. It was asked: why is this Bill being introduced? Why so urgently? No satisfactory explanation was provided. The question "Why is this Bill being introduced?" is still pertinent. A related question now is why is this Bill being brought before your Lordships after lying dormant for six months.
	Of course Bills do not immediately come before us after Report stage in another place, but a six-month lapse is surely unusual. Indeed, it is so unusual that this situation has aroused suspicion. That suspicion is enhanced by the manner in which the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages of the Bill in another place were hurriedly driven through. Such haste in procedure is used normally only when emergency legislation is under consideration. This is clearly not emergency legislation; as I said, it is a measure of constitutional reform.
	Perhaps this suspicion is unfounded and the Government will be able to put minds at ease. The Government could begin to deal with some of those concerns by telling the House why this Bill was introduced in the first place. Who was consulted by the Government before this measure was introduced? Why was the Bill rushed through another place in a manner usually reserved for emergency legislation? Is this measure a one-off, as it were, or is it a part of a wider review of the matter of disqualification? And, especially, why, after lying dormant for six months, is this Bill before the House tonight?
	I feel that I can perhaps suggest some answers to these questions. It is my firm belief that this measure has been brought forward in response to a demand from Sinn Fein/IRA. This measure formed no part of the 1998 Belfast agreement. Furthermore, let no one be in any doubt, this legislative proposal is not based on consensus; there has, in fact, been an absence of consultation. In short, we are faced with a constitutional measure that did not feature in the Belfast agreement and about which there is little or no consensus. I suggest that this is wholly unreasonable.
	Let us pause for a moment to consider the purpose of the Bill. It has a clear purpose: to permit persons simultaneously to be a Member here in the sovereign Parliament of Westminster, in Dublin in the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, and in Belfast in the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly. That is not the same as being a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and here at Westminster; nor is it the same as being a Member at Westminster and at the European Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a devolved assembly and the European Parliament is a supranational assembly. Neither are sovereign parliaments. Yet both Westminster and the Dublin Parliament are sovereign parliaments. Being a Member of a number of different assemblies and a single sovereign parliament does not pose the same problems as does being a Member of more than one sovereign parliament.
	A conflict of interests and duties is inevitable for Members of more than one sovereign parliament. Although two nations may share many interests, no two nations are always going to have the same interests. The Bill not only allows for a person to be a Member of the Irish Dail, at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it also permits a person to be a Minister or junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and a Member of the Dail. However, it does not allow a person to be appointed First Minister, Deputy First Minister or any other Minister or junior Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly if that person is a Minister in the Government of Ireland. Should not that prohibition apply to junior Ministers in the Republic of Ireland as it does to junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
	If a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland is not permitted to be a Minister or junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, why should a Minister or junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly be permitted to be a junior Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland? Again, I fear that such inconsistency and lack of reciprocity serves only to enhance suspicion of the Bill.
	The Government of the Republic of Ireland do not appear to be interested in enacting any similar measure to permit Members at Westminster--all Members at Westminster, not just those who are considered Irish citizens by the Republic's constitution--to be able to serve in the Irish Parliament. The Government of the Republic of Ireland plan no reciprocal measure. Indeed, I am led to believe that many parliamentarians in the Irish Parliament feel uneasy about that measure. That measure of constitutional reform creates as many anomalies as it removes. It serves no logical purpose unless one is a Sinn Fein Member at Westminster who wishes to be involved in the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
	There is no logic in accommodating a constitutional reform on which there is a lack of consensus, which formed no part of the Belfast agreement, which is designed for the sole benefit of one political party, and which is not even desired by many parliamentarians in the Republic of Ireland, the only other potential beneficiaries.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in the interests of brevity and in view of the late hour, I will not attempt to repeat the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has put forward regarding the inconsistencies of the Bill. Perhaps I may just say that I agree with a number of his remarks.
	I made it clear in a previous intervention that I thought it was inappropriate for the House to be discussing a constitutional measure, however small, at this late hour of the night, particularly in view of the developing role of your Lordships' House, as underlined by the Wakeham report, as a constitutional longstop. It is unfortunate--to say the least--that the Government have seen fit to bring this piece of legislation forward in the way that they have. Indeed, when asked--I hope the noble and learned Lord the Minister feels politely--why it was necessary to introduce the legislation now, no satisfactory answer was given. I can only speculate that there was a TD who had ambitions--

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I did not understand the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to be, "Why are the Government introducing the Bill today?" but, "Why is it happening at this particular time?" So I think that the noble Viscount is talking about two different things. For the record, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, nodded when I said that.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, whose intellect is well known, is more than capable of understanding even the complications of my noble friend's mind.
	Perhaps I may ask a slightly different question. Why is it so important that we should consider the Second Reading of the Bill now? Is it important that the Bill should become law? If so, why? Is it so important that we should be asked to rush it through in this way without an adequate explanation? Who is it designed to help? I assume that it is designed to help, above all, certain nationalist or republican people in Northern Ireland who have ambitions to become TDs. Those of us who have recently visited Dublin will, without question, have noticed the extreme nervousness with which members of the Dublin Government are viewing their next general election. The nightmare they are facing is that enough Sinn Fein TDs will be elected to the Dail next time round to hold the balance of power between the two parties.
	I can only assume that we are about to face the curious prospect that a number of people represented at the very least in the Northern Ireland Assembly will also be members of the Dail and will therefore be able to pursue through parliamentary means what a number of people on this side of the water and indeed in Northern Ireland itself see administratively, which is the beginnings of joint administrative authority in the Province, and that that is being pursued as a form of joint legislative authority as well. Whatever the protestations of Ministers may be in that respect, that is the only explanation which fits the very curious set of facts that your Lordships have managed to identify.
	It is clear that Members of the other place who are also members of Sinn Fein are not able to take their seats at the moment because they refuse to take the Oath. I hope and believe that the Government will not change the nature of the Oath for another place. The oath represents a clear commitment on the part of Members of another place to the polity which we all attempt to serve. We well know that Sinn Fein represents a tradition entirely inimical to the polity which we all attempt to serve. It is therefore entirely proper that if they do not wish to take that oath they should not have the right to serve in a Parliament whose main objective is to promote the welfare and interests of that polity.
	That brings me to the other curiosity in this very curious piece of legislation. How is it possible for a member of the Dail--I have no idea what Oath members of the Dail have to take but I imagine that they have to make some kind of affirmation of loyalty to the Republic of Ireland--to contemplate becoming a Member of another place where an affirmation or an Oath of loyalty to our polity has to be taken? How is that conflict to be resolved? If I understood the noble and learned Lord the Minister correctly, he suggested that it was up to the individual concerned. After all, we are not talking about Ministers here. However, surely it is up to this Parliament to decide whether it wants Members with divided loyalties? I am well aware that Members of Commonwealth countries may be presented with the same difficulty, but I suggest that, in an imperfect world, at least they are members of an organisation of nation states which has a historic link from which the Republic of Ireland decided to withdraw as long ago as 1949. The comparison appears to mix apples and oranges.
	I hope that I have made it clear that this is a Bill which seems not nearly as simple or as innocuous as the noble and learned Lord made out during his characteristically soothing remarks. I feel that we have not yet been given a remotely convincing explanation of why we are in such a hurry and why the Bill must be given a Second Reading at this late hour and at this particular point in the parliamentary cycle.
	I feel equally that what the Bill seeks to do is constitutionally unsound and something that this House would do well to consider in prime time rather than at this late hour. I hope that the noble Lord who is due to reply to the debate will be able to give slightly more convincing answers to both of those points. If he cannot do that, I shall be strongly tempted to suggest to the House that we should divide on Second Reading.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, the House is ill advised to discuss any subject at this time of night, but in so far as we are sitting, I see no reason why we should not be discussing this Bill. The world outside of this place thinks that we are ridiculous to sit as late as we do, but that applies to our business generally rather than only to this Bill.
	Given that we have the same relationship with Commonwealth countries--that is, the same ability for Commonwealth parliamentarians to sit in our Parliament as is being suggested here for the Republic of Ireland--we are not seeking to do anything dramatically new. Moreover, as a country we have closer relationships with the Republic of Ireland than we do with many Commonwealth countries. Those relationships are based on proximity, a common land border, common languages and many other shared traditions.
	Above all, however, those relationships have been developed and enhanced through the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Government of the Republic played a leading part in helping to achieve the Good Friday agreement. As a consequence of that agreement, the relationships have intensified. We now have the North-South Ministerial Council which also forges closer links between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
	Taking all of those factors into account, I do not believe that this is a drastic departure from precedent. This is a modest and reasonable Bill and one which common sense suggests that we should adopt.
	To my knowledge, the only individual who might fall into the category covered by the Bill is Seamus Mallon, who, I understand, might have become a Senator in Dublin but was prevented from doing so because he is a Member of the House of Commons. It is not a question of Sinn Fein as regards past precedent; it is Seamus Mallon. There may be others, but I do not think that it matters too much. In any case, many other politicians in Belfast maintain close relationships with Dublin. Frequent visits are made by Ulster Unionists, along with others.
	This is a modest and sensible measure. I cannot see why so much concern has been expressed about it.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I have been given a singular honour tonight. Not on every occasion is one given the opportunity to rise to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who had a distinguished career as a Northern Ireland Office Minister.
	However, I too find the whole business of the Bill very curious. To an extent, I believe that the Government Chief Whip let the cat out of the bag when he spoke of "choreographing" and "timetabling". This measure does not form a part of the Good Friday agreement. I believe that noble Lords are agreed on that point. This measure is an additional element. I shall give way.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage on me. Obviously, I am not familiar with the details of the situation in Northern Ireland. But, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, when I am asked by a Secretary of State who is familiar with the situation if I will use my best endeavours to see that a Bill receives a Second Reading according to a certain timetable, namely before the Summer Recess, all I can do as Chief Whip is do my best to achieve that.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's clarification of that point. But I merely make the point that the word "choreographing" in the Northern Ireland context has a slightly different meaning.

Lord Carter: I am sorry.

Lord Laird: My Lords, the hour is late. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rogan, whose speech outlined our major objections to the Bill. I can find no demand for it. I understand that there is possibly one person who would like the Bill passed for his own personal political objectives. That seems to me a poor reason to bring the Bill forward in this rather strange way after it has lain dormant on a shelf somewhere for six months, having been first rushed through the other place.
	The Good Friday agreement talks about parity of esteem. It talks about the concept of equality. We were told afterwards by many sections, including the Dublin government, "You cannot cherry-pick the Belfast agreement". I am prepared to accept that. But sometimes it might be thought that some people get slightly more parity than others. It is not a case of this not being a part of the Belfast agreement. This is additional to the Belfast agreement. This is something to suit the political agenda of some people in Northern Ireland who can make their demands in a slightly more threatening way than others.
	If there were a demand, a groundswell of opinion, in the Irish Republic in favour of creating the state of affairs that the Bill seeks to bring about, do they not have the option of rejoining the Commonwealth? If, as we are told, there is a great commonality of purpose with the people down south and there is a welling up of support and interest in looking after the activities of people in Northern Ireland, it is a pity that was not a bit more evident in some of the security situations that we have seen over the past few years. It is a pity that security co-operation was not as good as it could have been.
	If there is such a desire on the part of the two governments to look again at relationships, what representations have this Government made, for instance, to the Government of the Irish Republic concerning those people who live in the Republic but consider themselves to be members of the pro-British community?
	I should like to know who wants this Bill. The question has been asked many times tonight. If either of the two noble Lords on the Front Bench wish to answer that question now, I am prepared to give way so that we can discuss it. Who asked for this Bill? Who wants the Bill? Who benefits from the Bill? Do they accept the point that there seems to be slightly more parity for one section of the community than for the other?
	As a Unionist, I am prepared to work the Good Friday agreement. I am prepared not to cherry-pick it; I am prepared to do it all. But I have not gone back with a shopping list. I am prepared to take the hit of being a chairman of a cross-Border implementation body. That is not something that we did not want. We did not ask for it; we did not seek it--but if it is part of the agreement, we will do it. But we have not gone back with another shopping list. Why is there more parity for some people than for others? I cannot find any answers. Shall I give way and allow the Minister to respond? I thought that I was about to receive an answer but I was not.
	We should like to understand the political objectives of the Bill, where the demand for it comes from and the speed of it. I am prepared to accept that earlier the word "choreography" was used incorrectly. What is the objective of this Bill, who wants it and why do we have it before us today? Does the noble and learned Lord accept that in the delicate balance--even the choreography--in Northern Ireland, this kind of skewing of parity is noticed and has an impact? Perhaps the Government are prepared to explain the reason, even if it is unpalatable to us, why this Bill is before the House tonight; or maybe as chairman of a cross-Border implementation body I should now start to develop my own shopping list of matters additional to the Good Friday agreement.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I followed the progress of this Bill in the House of Commons and was extremely interested in it when it was first introduced. I have been waiting, waiting and waiting for the Bill to appear in your Lordships' House. For a long time the Bill appeared to have been dropped, just as the arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly appeared at one time to have been dropped. It is difficult to resist the conclusion, particularly in the light of the observations of the Chief Whip, that this Bill has been linked pari passu with the peace process.
	I accept that there are matters about which we are not entitled to ask, but this is a very far-reaching measure. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is a very skilled parliamentarian and is expert at telling us that things are not very significant and must be taken step by step. We must not worry about the next step until it arrives. For example, we have perfect freedom of action to consider whether the Oath to the House of Commons is to be altered. There is no need to consider it now; it can be dealt with later.
	With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, in no way whatsoever can this Bill be presented as a mere administrative tidying up or, in a practical sense, a measure to put us on the same footing as Commonwealth countries. It is not practical for someone to sit at the same time in the House of Commons and the Parliament of the Seychelles, the Lower House in Australia or the Lower House in India. When I was a Member of another place I should have loved to sit also in the Indian Parliament, but that is not a practical proposition and I do not believe that anyone has ever sought to propose it. In the context of Northern Ireland it is, however, a practical proposition. What we are doing for Northern Ireland is to make a reality of something that has never been a practical possibility for other Commonwealth countries.
	This may be a practical possibility for other European countries. The very arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the closeness of our relations with Europe could also be advanced as a reason why perhaps there should be membership of the French Assemblee and the House of Commons at the same time. It is perfectly clear that, step by step, this measure is tied to the peace process.
	I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was being a little simplistic when he said that there had been great consultation on this matter in the House of Commons. (I do not know whether I may have the attention of the Minister at some point.) It was some consultation. The Government tried to sneak it into the House of Commons late at night. The other place sat all night because there was uproar in a certain section of the Conservative Party. That was not voluntary consultation or close scrutiny; it was the House of Commons being very angry, puzzled and mystified by why and how the measure was being introduced. The question remains: why is this being introduced?
	The Minister referred to the distinction between Ministers and Back-Benchers. A Minister in the Irish Government could not be a Member of the House of Commons at the same time. He said that it posed a clear conflict of interest. But does not a similar conflict also arise with a Back-Bencher in both parliaments? They are both sovereign parliaments. In both parliaments one has to swear an Oath. One represents constituents in sovereign parliaments in different countries with different aspirations. There would be a conflict there almost as great as there would be between being a Minister in one parliament and a back-bencher in another.
	My noble friend Lord Cranborne referred to the conflict between the two Oaths. No doubt we shall be told by the Minister that the Oath is another matter; that we must take each step at its time; that there is no need to make a decision and that no decision is being proposed about the Oath. But we know what will happen. After the measure is implemented there will be proposals relating to the Oath at a later stage.
	I was unsure whether, in reply to my question, the Minister said that there would be, or there were, reciprocal arrangements in Ireland. The noble Lord who spoke later implied that perhaps measures would not be taken. I should be grateful if the Minister will clarify whether further measures are required or whether they exist in law already.
	These proposals were not included in the Good Friday agreement. I do not accept that it is a modest measure. It is a mystery why it was dropped, as it was, for several months and then rushed in at this stage.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, on a point or order, the noble Lord is speaking in the gap. The convention is that the speech should take four minutes. In the last debate, the noble Lord intervened although not having attended for much of it. Although the noble Lord is a distinguished parliamentarian, he is fairly new to your Lordships' House. I respectfully remind him of our conventions.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am extremely sorry if I have offended against any convention. It is only because of the strength of my feeling about the measure. I assure the noble Lord that I shall wind up my remarks quickly.
	It is a significant measure. I deeply fear that it is part of an appeasement process that I think is getting out of hand and which we shall come to rue in later stages.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, there are two equally legitimate views on the Bill. Indeed, there is a third; namely, the awful hour at which we are discussing it. I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House will agree with that third view.
	Of the first two, on the one hand it can be argued that a national legislature is one of the defining landmarks of a state and should in no way be diluted by allowing Members of other national legislatures to belong concurrently to our Parliament. That is the traditional view.
	On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has argued, one can recognise that the principle has already been breached since Members of Commonwealth legislatures can stand for election to the House of Commons, or appointment to this House which has happened in at least one case. Furthermore, it can be added that if the Council of the Isles, created as a result of the Belfast agreement, develops into a significant institution in due course, as many of us hope that it will, there is something to be said for an element of interchange and cross-fertilisation between Members of the various parliaments and assemblies of these islands which the Bill provides. In practice, of course, few politicians will attempt to avail themselves of this, as in the case of the Commonwealth. But in its own modest way it will serve as a symbol of the growing amity and co-operation between the peoples who populate this archipelago in the north west of the European continent. On the whole, we on these Benches believe that the second argument is the more compelling in the light of recent developments.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, as is already clear, we on these Benches do not like this Bill. It seems to us a very sinister Bill and was not part of the Good Friday agreement. My noble friend Lord Cranborne spoke of the change in the balance of power in the Dublin Government, a point I have been making for some time. It is a likely occurrence.
	It is also likely that Sinn Fein will win the West Tyrone election and the same person may well win the seat in Donegal. I am full of suspicion about what is behind the Bill. My criticism of the Government's approach to Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement has been consistent: there has been too much appeasement. In the days of Kevin McNamara and the right honourable Dr Mowlam there was a clear, well known republican ambition. Since the present Secretary of State has been in place, that has been slightly less obvious, except when the Prime Minister and Mr Ahern get together at regular intervals.
	The Bill was driven through the other place in the middle of the night, in an all-night sitting. It is presented to us almost in a crisis situation when we know that there is no crisis.
	The Chief Whip told us that he was urgently asked by the Secretary of State, the right honourable Peter Mandelson, to get the Bill through this stage before the Recess. What is it about the Bill that is all of a sudden so special? The Minister presented it as a tidying-up measure. It is no such thing; it is a clear initiative being driven for a given purpose. That is quite clear, but we do not know what the initiative is. It has clearly happened on a steady stealth-by-stealth basis; that is the republicanisation, the unification, of Ireland. That is how the people in Northern Ireland see it and at this hour of the night, as one of them, that is how I see it.
	The Bill is being used as a bargaining tool for something in return. The trouble with such bargains is that we have never seen evidence of anything in return. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, made the point that if the Republic is so anxious to have Members of the Dail serving in our Parliament and with the same rights as other Commonwealth citizens, why does it not rejoin the Commonwealth? During the past year or so, I have spoken to Members of the Dail several times and there was no antipathy towards that suggestion. In fact, it was thought to be a realistic possibility and I see the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, nodding.
	I return to the Bill and ask what is behind it. Furthermore, as an aside, I ask how many Members of Commonwealth Parliaments have at the same time been Members of another place. I am sure that at some stage the Minister or his officials will have an answer to that question--in writing will do but it would be nice to have it tonight.
	I saw the Bill a year ago when it went into the other place. I remember it collapsing and the fact that it did not come to this House because the Executive fell. It was my impression and that of members of my party that the Bill would never see the light of day again; would that it had not. We are very suspicious of the Bill. We shall continue to probe it and to resist it at every stage of its passage.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, under the circumstances and given the lateness of the hour, this has been a very lively debate, and an interesting one at that. A number of points have been made, perhaps with a better temper than one might have expected under the circumstances. I shall endeavour to respond to those points, raised quite properly.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and perhaps also the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, posed the first and most important question with regard to the haste, and yet the slowness, with which this legislation has been brought forward. Listening to their comments and observations, it struck me that the Government would have been damned if we had brought back the Bill quickly and now we have been damned for taking our time.
	However, I believe that we should remind ourselves that the Bill was published before Christmas last year and the commitment therefore made. It is important to know that that commitment meant that all stages were completed in another place. The delay between the completion of those stages and the Second Reading of the Bill in this House tonight was due to the intervening uncertainty with regard to the Assembly and its suspension and restoration in recent months--as recently as 29th May. Because of that, the time between the Bill being committed in another place and its introduction here is explained in good measure. This is the Second Reading. After the Recess there will be plenty of opportunity to consider the Bill at length and with no particular urgency.
	As to the question of consultation, which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, raised quite properly, as I said, the Bill was published before Christmas 1999 and the normal opportunities for representation and scrutiny clearly have applied. As the noble Lord will know, one of the Bill's three clauses was inserted in another place at the express request of his own party. Clearly, some consultation had been undertaken to achieve that particular objective.
	Understandably, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also made the point that the Government were attempting to rush the Bill through the Commons. Following the establishment of the devolved institutions in December last year, we believed that it was important to maintain momentum by pursuing vigorously all outstanding measures relating to the political settlement. At that stage we had witnessed swift progress on the constitutional provisions contained in the agreement, the establishment of an inclusive, power-sharing, devolved Assembly, the amendments to the Irish constitution renouncing Ireland's long-standing territorial claim over Northern Ireland, and the establishment of the cross-Border shared institutions. Proceeding quickly with this Bill was simply a part of the momentum to move forward more rapidly. However, there was no intention to push through the Bill with undue haste.
	By that stage, Section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 had already amended the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 to enable a Member of the Irish Senate to take a seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That amendment had been accepted by both Houses without controversy. We had no reason to believe that extending the same principle in the Disqualifications Bill would elicit such a vastly different response. I believe that that was a reasonable position for us to adopt.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked why, if the Bill was urgent, its Lords stages were delayed for six months. He wanted to know the rationale behind that. Simply, it was not considered appropriate to proceed with the Bill while, as I said earlier, there was a degree of uncertainty surrounding the future of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House agree with that. However, now that the institutions are restored--on a firm basis, as I think most of us would agree--it is entirely reasonable that we should continue, particularly as the relationship between the British and Irish Governments proved to be as constructive and positive as ever during the brief period of suspension.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made a further point about junior Ministers in the Dail being able to take up a ministerial position in the Northern Ireland Assembly--or at least I think that that was his point. The intention of the Bill is not to enable junior Ministers in the Dail to take up ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That needs to be plainly understood.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked us why we were so keen to take Second Reading now. I think that I covered that in answering the earlier point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. The noble Viscount also asked whether there would be changes to the oath of allegiance. That is not part of the Bill. We do not intend to interfere with oaths of allegiance. Oaths that are taken in other Parliaments are not a matter for us and could never properly be considered as such.
	The noble Viscount also talked about dual mandates and conflicts of interest. There are other ways of looking at those issues. It is already possible in Commonwealth legislatures to join two different sovereign Parliaments. That much is understood. Holding a dual mandate does not necessarily result in a conflict of interest or of loyalty. We have dealt with the problem of ministerial conflicts of interest by inserting an exclusion in Clause 2. Several Members of another place are also Members of devolved legislatures and at least one is also a Member of the European Parliament. There are Members of your Lordships' House who are Members of the European Parliament. However, those in the Executive who make decisions need to avoid possible conflicts of interest. That is why the Bill constrains Ministers.
	I do not believe that Northern Ireland has been singled out for special treatment. It is being treated as part of the United Kingdom.
	Some have suggested that the purpose of the Bill is to achieve a united Ireland by uniting the two legislatures. That is not our intention. The Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland Act and the British-Irish agreement all make it clear that the decision on whether to pursue a united Ireland depends on the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill will in no way circumvent that. It gives Irish citizens rights that are already accorded to Commonwealth nations, just as they enjoy other significant electoral rights enjoyed by Commonwealth citizens. That is a recognition of the close political ties between the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Lord Laird: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a lot of his arguments are reasonable, but the timing is not? We do not understand timing the Bill alongside the Good Friday agreement. I do not know anybody in Northern Ireland who requested that. Where has the pressure come from for the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am drawn to conclude that perhaps there is never a right time for some people to make progress on some of these matters. We have judged that it is right to try to make progress. We suspended that progress while the Assembly was not in operation. We now want more progress to be made. The arguments for developing that special relationship can be taken forward with the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made some clear and specific points about the special relationship with the Irish public, including our historic and cultural links. We need to build on those relationships on the basis of consent, trying to cement the political progress that has been made over the past two or three years and beyond.
	I think that I have answered the primary points that have been raised. I do not think that I have left much out and I am sorry if I have missed anything in trying to summarise where we are.
	However, it is important to make the final point that the Bill is clearly linked to the peace process. It is very important that we should cement those links in developing continued and improved British/Irish relations. That surely is at the heart of the Good Friday agreement. Much political progress has been made since then. I can well understand some of the misgivings, but I think that we would be very foolish to throw up the political opportunity and the opportunity to make further progress.
	So far as we are concerned, this is simply a case of amending and regularising existing legislation according to the existing principles in the light of recent developments. Nothing innovative is being suggested. The Bill does not represent for us a major constitutional amendment. It will not have fundamental, practical implications, nor will it have any impact on the composition of this Chamber.
	Given the progress that has been made in reaching a political settlement in Northern Ireland, the amendments that have been made to the Irish constitution and the coming into force of the British/Irish agreement, this surely is now the right time to extend this modest courtesy to the Irish Parliament. This measure strengthens the close ties that exist between the United Kingdom and Ireland, but it does so within both the terms and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. As such, I hope that it will receive the support of noble Lords here today. I commend the Bill to the House.

Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord puts the question, as I was on my way out of the House at the Peers' entrance, I happened to catch sight of the television in the lobby. I thought that I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, suggest that he wished to divide the House at the end of the debate. Not unnaturally, I returned to the House.
	I hope that I have not brought about this situation in what was an honest attempt to help the House. I merely informed the House that the reason for the Second Reading was that I had been asked by the Secretary of State to achieve a Second Reading before the Recess. It was entirely my own phrase and choreography. Chief Whips should not hold opinions or do any more than state the facts of a situation.
	The reason that the Bill is being read tonight--and I have already apologised for the fact that it is so late--is that I thought that it would be convenient for everyone who was speaking on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, bearing in mind the difficulties of coming backwards and forwards. The Bill would probably have been read at 9 o'clock if we had not had the earlier incidents. I took the view that it would probably be convenient for the Bill to be read this evening. Those are the reasons.
	I think I am correct in saying that there is no precedent that we can discover for dividing the House on a shout at Second Reading. It is completely outwith the convention of the House. My understanding is that a Motion is tabled so that the House is aware of the intention of the noble Lord that this Bill be read this day or in six months, or that the Bill be not given a Second Reading, with a reasoned amendment. It would be extraordinary if, on a whim, we attempted to kill a Bill on the shout. I therefore hope that noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, will the noble Lord, the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, tell us if the Secretary of State gave him any reason for wanting this Second Reading so quickly?

Lord Carter: No, my Lords. He merely wrote to me in the usual way and said that it would be helpful, if possible, to have a Second Reading of the Bill before the Summer Recess. At first I thought that it would not be possible. I discussed this in the usual channels and no objection whatever was raised in the usual channels. I then realised that we would have time today in the normal way. Because everyone was here for the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, I thought that I was being helpful by having the Second Reading tonight. I was responding to a simple request to find time, if possible, for a Second Reading before the Summer Recess. It also helps us to get it into Committee more quickly in the overspill, because we do not have to wait for the 14-day interval. It is as simple as that. As far as I am aware, there is nothing at all sinister about it.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene before he sits down. May I express my complete sympathy to the noble Lord, the Government Chief Whip. It is clearly a difficult situation for him. I do not believe that anybody in this House, least of all myself, would in any way suggest that he was ever minded to be unhelpful to your Lordships. We all greatly appreciate the way in which he performs his duties and the considerable style with which he does so. It is hardly surprising that he is held in the deepest affection in all corners of your Lordships' House.
	As a former Leader, I hope that I am aware of what is usual at Second Reading. I hope that I am right in thinking also that it is still within the rules of your Lordships' House to divide the House on a shout at Second Reading. It seems to me that the only time at which this House would be extremely unwise to vote against the Government at Second Reading is on a manifesto Bill, which this Bill clearly is not.
	With the greatest respect to the noble Lord the Chief Whip, I listened with as much care as I could muster not only to the noble and learned Lord who introduced the debate but also to the noble Lord who, with his usual courtesy, answered it. I was not happy with the answers to the two questions which I asked. They were principally concerned with the content of the Bill and the way in which the noble Lord the Chief Whip has been asked by his colleagues to introduce this Bill at this hour.
	It was with some anxiety that I listened to his answer when I intervened before the beginning of this debate, because I had hoped that he would be able to accommodate us if there was no real reason for us to hurry this Bill through. I have not heard one. I am sure that, like every good Chief Whip, he will have kept a House. I intend to divide the House to make the point. I undertake that we shall put in Tellers and that we will not endeavour to defeat him.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I should tell the noble Viscount that under the usual arrangements which mean that we never whip on a Second Reading, because it is unknown to me to divide the House on a shout at the end of a Second Reading--I cannot think of any precedent--there is no whip. It is not my duty to keep a House on unwhipped business, which, as the noble Viscount knows, Second Readings always are.

On Question, Whether the Bill shall be read a second time?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 2.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 57, I declare the Question not decided and the debate thereon stands adjourned.

Lord Carter: My Lords, as business on this Bill is not concluded, I shall table it to continue tomorrow afternoon, after the Finance Bill.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Census (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.

Football (Disorder) Bill

Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past midnight.